|
Post by madmac on Oct 31, 2006 18:13:34 GMT 12
“It's called airworthiness “ That's like say if something is green it must belong to the armed services.
I was thinking more along the lines of parts replacements covered by mods (certified of a form) rather than the duplication of sheet metal parts that part 148's do. One should be careful not to over rate OEM parts, they typical maintain the original state of design (hence the new C130J's still have lots of aluminium parts which which crack & corrode with glee because it was “too hard” for Lockheed to update the drawing stack, 50 year old drawing stacks are not pretty). It also lets you fix the various failings of the original parts. Some of the OEMs tend to use the after market as a cash cow. One example that comes to mind is a gear position switch bracket which is too flexible to rig readily, cracks because its poorly made & the price has gone up 10x's in the last 12 months. While local manufacture of parts is not always applicable, it can cover a hell of a lot of an airframe.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Oct 30, 2006 17:35:06 GMT 12
The Tornado are old. But there are few airframes available & suited to long range carriage of long range AAM etc (maybe SU 27's, F15's but swing wings highly beneficial, Black Jacks could be interesting ;D). There is not much ACM against AWACs, tankers & you go home quick smart.
Multi-role capability add's about 20% to an airframe cost (never seen weight cost data), require more pilot training or more likely less expertise on each role and only work well where there are similarly performance requirements.
Logistical it would be a pain. But if a country stops talking to your every thing doesn't stop flying. Its simple to show a hard cost benefit of reducing the number of types but really hard to show the cost of the resultant inflexibility ( i.e the USAF C130's flying 2 tonne loads around Iraqi). As a result it can be guaranteed that nearly all western airforces operate too few airframe types. Why can't the airforce do what nearly every other operator in NZ does, make or have made the parts that are hard to get or too costly.
The money the RNZAF is spending on the P3's & C130's doesn't give a good return unless the engines are up graded (on older airframes engine related costs are about 50% of the total operating cost).
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Oct 29, 2006 17:36:28 GMT 12
This assumes at the airforce takes on extra capability to replace the lack of warships, which is justifiable given their current lack of survivability. We live or die by our control of the sea.
The one thing that is overlooked is the use of decoys not just for the airframe but for ASM missiles as well. For example if you attack a naval fleet with say 10 missiles your chance of success would be better if you used 5 missiles, and used the freed up hard points carry missile decoys (assuming that the decoys are smaller & that a number, say 5 can be carried on a singe HP) as when the defences would have to deal with 30 radar returns. With large scale use , this could act as significant force multiplier.
Air combat 12 x Tornado's reengined with EJ200's possibly lengthened fuse for fuel / ECM (like what was offered to the japs), tasked/ equipped for AWAC, tanker, satellite killing & long range recon..
ECM 6 x Tornado's for wild weasels airframe mods as above.
Primary maritime shrike capability. 25 x SAAB JAS-39C Gripen 15 x SAAB JAS-39D Gripen
Maritime Patrol/ ASW 6 x Nimrods MR4 Very good range, High speed, 4 engines, lowest signature of any maritime patrol aircraft 4 x P-3K added ASW capability & reengined. .
Tankers 4 x Nimrods if only to get the build numbers up. I think tanker / transports are putting all ones eggs in one basket if the shit hits the fan (anyway ANZ got lots of transport capability).
Transports 6 x C-130H re engined of course. C-130J have the same structure as the C-130H but with a poor build quality. Fitted with ECM & infared red jamming. 3 x Hawker 850 with cargo door & floor. Good for VIP's, medvac etc. Fitted with ECM & infared red jamming. 2 x 757 Fitted with ECM & infared red jamming. Trainers 18 x Aermacchi MB339 15 x CT4E with the new glass cockpit. 6 x R44 All maintenance would be keep in-house to provide a war reserve that can be raided when needed ( at which time it can be contracted out for the short term.)
Choppers 4 x MH6 hacks & turbine conversion. 10 x AH1Z all weather close in grunt support 10 x UH1Y For chopper operations composite fuses etc are crap from a maintenance & cost point of view. Add ASW capability to the Seasprites
Territorial Air Force It lets the service get a few more years out of their people. 8 x AH6 Uses existing skills that the civilian operators use for venison hunting almost. 7 x MH6 5 x UH1Y
18 x A4K upgraded to match Gripens avionics (but single role, to suit TF pilots flying less time on aircraft) reengined & relifed. Could added the F35 style intakes, use trust vectoring engines, dig up Douglas super Skyhawk ( totally different to the Singaporeans ) data for incorporation (hydraulic slats, increased max AOA & conventional rudder skins) but that's just an Aerospace engineer dreaming.
Bases: I would built a bare base on Tokalu, a cheap unsinkable aircraft carrier in a handy place & upgrade the Chatham islands strip to be able to base a maritime patrol aircraft out of there for a week at a time. I keep Whenuapai open & added one new base in the South Island. A gain this is a case of too many eggs in to few baskets.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Feb 27, 2007 17:28:36 GMT 12
There are currently 6 alphas in service, 2 with Waikato Aeroclub (third to be delivered shortly), 2 with Southern wings, CTC has 1 plus they are leasing ZK-FXY (Alpha's demonstrator when they can get there hands on it). These are 160A models, the next one is an 160Ai which goes to the U.K.
|
|