|
Post by horicle on Apr 14, 2018 16:06:59 GMT 12
My recollection is that 75 Sqn was returning from the Vanguard exercise and were in Singapore because they could not transit through Indonesian airspace (refuel in Bali) due to the international station. The RAF offered to tanker them around Indon airspace and the offer was declined. They were late getting home that year.
The what ifs had the Kahu A-4's been used is interesting as their Air to Ground capabilities probably exceeded anything the Aussies could bring to the party.
I wish I could remember.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Apr 9, 2018 16:50:26 GMT 12
I may have missed something, but I'm curious what Lockheed's reasons are for not doing with the P-3 what they've done with the C-130 A good listing of P-3 Variants is at this site. Google Lockheed - P-3 Orion Research Group There were projects for a P-3D and a P-3G with new engines but they were not taken up. That would be the equivalent of the C-130J development but well before it in time. I am hoping this posted where I meant it to go.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Apr 9, 2018 16:47:22 GMT 12
The P-7 and P-8 are some years apart. Check my post of May 29, 2017. The P-7 beat Boeings B757 MPA but priced itself out of the picture.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Apr 9, 2018 16:44:42 GMT 12
Lockheed had a P-7 ,basically an enlarged Orion ,I think the idea/design lost out to the P-8, so consigned to history.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Apr 6, 2018 13:01:36 GMT 12
Could someone try this. Enter search function and ask for posts in the last 12 days (that's back to 26th March). What I get is from today back to 1st April, that is only six days and no more. If that is my computer it is really interesting :>( But if I go to any thread all the relevant posts are there.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Apr 6, 2018 12:20:55 GMT 12
It might not be pro boards but there seems to have been no posts between 25th March and 1st April. Or did you all take a holiday. If it is just me then I need help.
Written here because I don't know how to tell anybody.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Apr 4, 2018 11:29:52 GMT 12
With a bit of luck the P-8 will be out of production before we get our ducks in a row. The intelligent alternative that our decision makers realise the P-8/MQ-4C is the wrong deal for us is not something to rely on. I live in hope.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Mar 23, 2018 11:24:11 GMT 12
To me it is always about using the profit from a good venture to support a part of the company that is not making a profit. The non profit section may still be supporting the total venture, just not in cash.
To a real accountant that means the bottom line suffers and therefore the shareholders suffer. The answer is obvious.
The missing bit is called 'the customer'
Now for my real story of accounting.
Used to be that every ship had an accountant. The guy sat in a deckchair at the stern and watched what was thrown overboard and checked the line the ships wake made in the sea. In the evening after supper he had a beer with the skipper and told him what was wasted and how efficiently the ship was going about its business.
Today he/she sits in a lazi-boy chair at the bow protected from the elements by an air conditioned bubble and tells the captain where to go. He/she has no maritime qualifications as accountants have degrees.
Please understand none of my friends are accountants.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Feb 20, 2018 13:46:48 GMT 12
Correct, they just haven't been delivered yet, and it was a close call. Probably political more than anything else. In my opinion not the first time the UK has got it wrong.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Feb 20, 2018 11:01:02 GMT 12
I see on the DID news that Poland and Canada have joined the NATO group of France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain and Turkey in a 10 year programme looking to find follow-on ‘solutions’ for ageing maritime aircraft. They apparently want the whole gambit of anti-submarine and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance in the kit. Considering the closeness of the UK’s P-8 / P-1 call and the fact that the above countries have a mix of Littoral and Deep Blue requirements I wonder where it will lead. I think we should keep our P-3’s going as long as possible.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Feb 20, 2018 10:47:51 GMT 12
Also note "Like for Like" was the product of a previous Government. And all that that implies.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Feb 16, 2018 15:32:40 GMT 12
I see the RNZAF fleet shopping list beginning to look do-able. Here is my take. I have made a few eliminations and dropped the A400 and Kawasaki P-1 for the moment. The A400 because I think the Turboprop heavy lifter has become an evolutionary dead end. The modern high bypass jet has become as good as the prop job at low speed and definitely cruises better, all without the cost and and weight of gearboxes and props. Just accept that. The P-1 only goes out because the Global 6000 options keep the number of types down while keeping a good mix of roles and capabilities. The dollar values are the fly away costs Wikipedia quotes per aircraft. Then I will add the extras.
Apologies for mixing threads but I think it all fits together.
2 Kawasaki C-2 - Solves the heavy lift problem (US$272M) 4 C-230J - Replaces the bulk of the current freighter fleet (US$640M) 6 Bombardier 6000 - 2 for Strategic, VIP, and show the flag transport missions (US$121M) - 4 as SAAB Swordfish deep water MPA (US$1000M). There is no quoted cost for a Swordfish yet. But when United Arab Emirates ordered an extra one (No. 3) of SAAB’s 6000 based GlobalEye Swing Role Surveillance Systems which has 70% commonality with Swordfish the cost of that aircraft was US$238M. 8 C295 -4 in Persuader configuration for Littoral MPA (US$240M) -4 for light Tactical Transport role (US$120M) and just for the serious fun of being able to set up to do real Air Force work 4 Textron Scorpion with two recon packs and two Interdiction role packs. (US$80M, does not include the role packs). This fleet will grow with time.
All that for the fly-away airframes (Wikipedia’s costings) comes to US$2.473Billion. Add 50% as a start figure for setting up, training, etc and we have US$3.7B required over 10 years (2020 to 2030). I must have a talk to Ron, Winston and Jacinda. Does not use much out of the NZ$20B that is supposed to available.
It is a pity about all those factors that mean it is just a dream.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Feb 9, 2018 13:54:33 GMT 12
I recon the 757 would make a better civil single isle conversion to MPA (Boeings first choice). Pity about no 757 production line.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Feb 4, 2018 10:20:20 GMT 12
Brilliant research folks. The Kiwi Roundel Vulcan was the 1972 visit. Also I have to confess my one hundred and eleven is the product of inflation. That event is still my favourite Vulcan visit. So much so that any other singleton Vulcan visits seem to have fallen off the memory shelf. The ravages of age.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Feb 3, 2018 15:39:14 GMT 12
1971 is a while ago and I hope my memory is working correctly. This would be the Vulcan (only one on this visit) that had the RAF red centre on the fuselage roundels changed to the RNZAF Kiwi. It was done professionally by our S&S guys and the crew loved it. So much it stayed on the aircraft until it got home.
We then heard that some Group Captain blew a fuse and the cow backed well and truly into the fan.
A nicer story was when the aircraft stayed at Christchurch for a day or two. One day on the tarmac one of the crew chiefs was approached by some deep freeze American Servicemen and asked “How long have you guys had these?” The chiefie told me he looked back at the Vulcan and worked out that they were taking him for a Kiwi and looking at the Kiwi roundels. (we all look the same to them), so using his best Kiwi accent he told them “it’s the first of one hundred and eleven”. Partly true.
On that southern excursion the crew apparently beat the crap out of the Kingston Flyer which resulted in a telegram from the driver to Base Ohakea. The gist of it was thanks for the flyby and “You are big and beautiful but you have a fly spot under your left wing”.
When it left Ohakea the farewell beat up was a sight to behold (except of course such things never happen). I had been pre warned and was standing on the tarmac outside the tower. The Vulcan approached the tower from the direction of the CRDF hut which meant he would have passed over the runway intersection. Before the aircraft had passed the intersection it was into ground effect and under half a wingspan off the ground. As it was flying directly towards us, (me and one of the CAA radar techs) I could see it nodding gently in pitch and turned to explain to him about ground effect and short coupled pitch stability. Only to see his back end as he ran inside the tower to the safety of his equipment room. At about 150 yards (pre metric) from the edge of the grass the vulcan rotated and poured on the coal. The anemometer on the top of the tower recorded an over-speed.
I wonder what the Vulcan did over Nelson?
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Feb 1, 2018 11:52:58 GMT 12
A while back on this thread there was the P-3 spares potential problem and the effect it would have on our fleet availability. I have just noted that the Germans have signed up for a US$158.5 Million System Refresh program with Lockheed Martin. This is to sustain P-3 operations until 2035. I think these airframes were originally Dutch (or close) because the Germans had Atlantics way back. The linking thought is 'what spares problem and who is having it'? What rush is there to replace our P-3 fleet? As a reward for reading this far you might like to look at this P-3 pic. mma.prnewswire.com/media/594280/Lockheed_Martin___P_3C_Orion_Maritime_Surveillance_Aircraft_Germany.jpg?w=800
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Dec 12, 2017 17:24:15 GMT 12
With a little help from the following Forums
Return of Air Combat Force Backed An idea to re-instate the Combat Squadrons Question-Could the Combat Force be rebuilt? Air Combat Force Abolition. former Combat Wing status Starter pack for RNZAF Air Combat Wing! Air Combat Force Abolition.
Thoughts on a combat force
If this is ever going to happen the first step is a government policy requiring the appropriate capabilities to exist.
For that reason the overriding situation in this discussion is that it will never happen. The outcome is a complete failure - nothing - nil - a void of hope. Do not despair. Any other outcome is an improvement on the current situation.
So any step forward is a gain
What has made it worth writing this is that a practical airframe to bring about an RNZAF combat capability is now flying. Building up a lost capability is a long and painstaking process. The more complex the required end result the more time and pain involved (read finance).
Recall the functions the Skyhawks were there to do and identify those that currently our Air Force can not currently provide. We need a return to a Force with balanced capability.
The capabilities required include. The presence of force in a timely and accurate manner. Providing quick response reconnaissance. Assisting and directly proving surveillance. providing an Air Power component to sister services in their training exercises. Enabling our airmen (/persons) to maintain the necessary skills to do all these tasks. Training replacement personal in the relevant military skills. Basically doing what Air Power does best, getting there first.
To meet this magic vehicle, google ‘textron scorpion news’, or track down Air International magazine for November 2017 (Scorpion’s coming of age p28). At US$20M per copy we could damn near get there on the cake stall income. Ever come across a light combat jet with 2.5 cubic metres of internal bay space for ‘plug and play’ equipment fits (up to 3,500lb worth). One of the fits is the Wescam MX-25 electro-optical and infrared sensor. A better sensor than the P-8 carries according to one source.
Then when it is proven the Air Force can do the tasks it is time to talk about the desired heavy equipment and the Scorpion becomes a 'super' Macchi. Probably not really needed.
I will now climb back into my parallel universe where some things never happened. I will close the door because I don’t want a bloody great crowd barging in.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Dec 12, 2017 8:14:53 GMT 12
I’ll go with camtech on the cut-off date. I just couldn't remember wearing them after Fiji. I still believe it was a pay review that removed them so look for something around that time.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Dec 11, 2017 19:43:49 GMT 12
The good conduct stripes were worth sixpence a day each. Did take five years to get each one. When they were introduced they were probably a meaningful extra on the pay. All their life they remained at 6d each per day. So when inflation made them worthless they were quietly pensioned of in the four group to two group pay review about 1965/66, when I was wearing one. Worth two duty free beers.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Dec 5, 2017 15:03:05 GMT 12
Try this
Most of our rules of the air have an origin in the rules of the sea. Just a 3D version. Interestingly the British set up a committee in 1846 to upgrade the rules of the sea to accommodate the new steamships. These manoeuvred without consideration of the wind and the additions where mainly about this.
It was decreed that in navigable channels and head on approaches steamships would pass to the right. This put the ‘confrontation’ side of a vessel on the left (port) side. That is where the captain would position himself (were there herself’s then). The unintended consequence came a little bit later when motor vehicles started to appear. In many (almost all) countries were there were no defined road rules it made sense to adapt an existing set of rules, of the sea. Except Britain where the silly basterds who set the rules of the sea had always driven on the left. In these other countries the driver sat on the left. Did you see it coming.
Why. The clue lies in TS’s post about swords. I think they had something to do with how you mounted a horse. Like TS’s observation about getting into cockpits. And on the roads of Britain horsemen passed right to right in case that sword was needed (no lefties need apply). That’s Britain, those other countries had got past the sword and sat the driver where he/she was needed.
So I get three reasons for the captain being on the port side.
In an old side by side open cockpit it is easiest to get into. In an old side by side open cockpit behind an engine of the day (prop rotation) it gets the clearest air. When flying in airways or circuit patterns the ‘conflict’ side is usually set to be the port side.
|
|