mroz
Flying Officer
Posts: 59
|
Post by mroz on Dec 13, 2011 21:17:46 GMT 12
RIP
|
|
mroz
Flying Officer
Posts: 59
|
Post by mroz on Dec 13, 2011 21:16:03 GMT 12
|
|
mroz
Flying Officer
Posts: 59
|
Post by mroz on Nov 21, 2011 3:09:37 GMT 12
|
|
mroz
Flying Officer
Posts: 59
|
Post by mroz on Oct 22, 2011 1:06:38 GMT 12
Great vid with Gateway Bridge adding to the visual impact - love that noise!
|
|
mroz
Flying Officer
Posts: 59
|
Post by mroz on Oct 12, 2011 19:46:42 GMT 12
re the article - Simon the #1 comment poster has obviously never seen an aircraft put on a few moves!
|
|
mroz
Flying Officer
Posts: 59
|
Post by mroz on Oct 12, 2011 19:36:51 GMT 12
Apologies, my error, sorry for taking an interest.
|
|
mroz
Flying Officer
Posts: 59
|
Post by mroz on Oct 11, 2011 4:14:01 GMT 12
..... I'm a New Zealander. I moved to London in 1940 during the war and I have never gone home but I'm still a kiwi, I..... Sir, I read your msg - that's a long time to have never seen the land of your birth - would you consider a trip "home"? Not being rude, but arriving in London in 1940 puts you past the teen years - would your health be up to it? Best wishes... - sorry I realise having reread your post you may have taken trips home to visit.
|
|
mroz
Flying Officer
Posts: 59
|
Post by mroz on Sept 30, 2011 20:20:59 GMT 12
|
|
mroz
Flying Officer
Posts: 59
|
Post by mroz on Sept 30, 2011 19:59:13 GMT 12
Firstly, I've said all along, that any possible, not certain, plan to return to a fast jet capability for the RAN - the ADF always has had, does and will have a "fixed wing capability" - is long term. Why may the RAN regain that capability - because it's been plainly clear to every member of the ADF, from a General, Rear Admiral and Air Vice Marshall, right down to the lowest ranks, that IF the ADF ever found itself in a serious regional FIGHT - and being a military the whole idea is that it WILL in the future sooner later, find itself in just such a position, as it has in the past, say an East Timor style deployment that went very bad, as opposed to going rather well, it has a blinding weakness in its lack of indigenious power projection capability.
The same reason the Army bought Abrams - why, cause if you don't have mainline battle tanks, you're simply not a serious Army - as simple as - you can put all the troops you want into a hot zone and with out 1st echelon tanks - their sitting ducks in combat! You need heavy and deadly armour to drive back sustained resistance on the ground.
The RAN, MAY, at some stage in the future need to project a similar sustained and deadly air presence over friendly troops and to hit strategic enemy assets repeatedly.
Nothing in modern COMBAT is as important as air cover and projecting armour!
Before you say "Australia will not find itself in that position alone" - well, why not? In the age of non-state actors and major powers engaged in a variety of operations in other regions, the traditional structures of old are history:
"I am quite confident that in the foreseeable future armed conflict will not take the form of huge land armies facing each other across extended battle lines, as they did in World War I and World War II or, for that matter, as they would have if NATO had faced the Warsaw Pact on the field of battle." - General H. Norman Schwarzkopf
In the future REGIONAL issues will require, perhaps with few friends, REGIONAL solutions.
The LONG TERM ability to maximise the value of RAN assets - with the long-term intended fire power is crucial! I don't want to be the bloke telling soliders from Aust & NZ in years to come, we'll we've got the LHD's, but not the aircraft - so no sustained air cover fellas!!!!
|
|
mroz
Flying Officer
Posts: 59
|
Post by mroz on Sept 28, 2011 0:01:39 GMT 12
That all makes not alot of sense - the clock never stands still - obviously, in the corridors of the ADF, plans are being drawn up that may see, a range of future programs one day actioned. All the programs you yourself mentioned, were once off the radar to all but a select few, as is no doubt a long-term plan to simply see the RAN regain a capability it once had - seems rather obvious if you take a 10-20yr vision of things, nothing really earth shattering in it!
I'm quite sure in 10-20yrs time the powers that be will already be starting to think serious upgrade time for the Tiger and MRH-90 and the F35, in any version, will be common enough place!
|
|
mroz
Flying Officer
Posts: 59
|
Post by mroz on Sept 23, 2011 23:56:23 GMT 12
No doubt easily enough fixed when the politics is right!
|
|
mroz
Flying Officer
Posts: 59
|
Post by mroz on Sept 23, 2011 18:08:22 GMT 12
Personally, I think both NZ and Aust likely got screwed by Kaman! I still can't see for either country what the particular appeal was, in buying what is at its core, an aged piece of flying technology. For some mad reason we in Australia then decided, "hey into this old frame we can stuff every mod piece of tech possible and it'll all just work" - ok, maybe fine in theory, but the reality was somewhat different. The Romeo will be a much better buy.
|
|
mroz
Flying Officer
Posts: 59
|
Post by mroz on Sept 23, 2011 17:44:29 GMT 12
Personally, I feel if NZ was to re-enter fast jets, the Gripen would be the way to go, but highly unlikely. It is more likely, that NZ will await a yet to be built 5th gen "light" fighter. Time will tell - sorry to be "off topic" - just because the plane is noted above.
|
|
mroz
Flying Officer
Posts: 59
|
Post by mroz on Sept 23, 2011 17:34:52 GMT 12
As some general background given this particular topic - today, Australia announced the [likely] purchase of a 6th Globemaster. (I also made a point of this on the "ANZAC Board").
|
|
mroz
Flying Officer
Posts: 59
|
Post by mroz on Sept 23, 2011 17:27:06 GMT 12
6th [likely] C-17 for RAAF "announced" today, worth their weight in gold those things.
|
|
mroz
Flying Officer
Posts: 59
|
Post by mroz on Sept 23, 2011 17:24:17 GMT 12
Wouldn't be any different for the RAN than it is for a range of other "carrier" operators and it works for them!
|
|
mroz
Flying Officer
Posts: 59
|
Post by mroz on Sept 21, 2011 16:42:58 GMT 12
This type of thing is alot of politics. The ADF/Govt aren't going to come out in one single step and say "we're going to reestablish a fast jet naval capability". You "baby-step-it" instead. The naval capacity, the right air capability, the necessary operational support etc - it's probably every bit of a 10/15yr program, but there's little doubt, it is underway!
|
|
mroz
Flying Officer
Posts: 59
|
Post by mroz on Sept 21, 2011 3:32:15 GMT 12
Erroic...thanks for that Turkey was indeed the country and I can see now the myth of the first aspect of my question declaring war on Germany. I did some internet research on declarations of war to learn that the Commonwealth of Australia in fact did not declare war on Germany but relied on the Kings declarations as inclusve of them because they did not opt for full independance until 1942. New Zealand on the other hand had a different legal opinion of self government of the "Dominion of New Zealand" Australia, became "fully" independent on 1 January, 1901, with the formation of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Australian Govt simply determined that it was necessary for a formal "declaration of war", given the strong historical links between Great Britain and Australia.
|
|
mroz
Flying Officer
Posts: 59
|
Post by mroz on Sept 21, 2011 2:37:18 GMT 12
The Bushmaster was designed in Adelaide, by Perry Engineering with some support from Irish firm, Timoney. It was totally redesigned in Bendigo by ADI following their acquiring the project/tender. Timoney supplied draftsmen to help with the redesign, but the engineering design was performed in Bendigo by ADI staff. (source SRMThomas/wiki)
|
|