|
Post by meo4 on Feb 19, 2012 11:05:59 GMT 12
The new header today is a beautiful shot of a beautiful aircraft thanks to photographer Gavin Conroy. Dave Phillips in his wonderful Hawker Hunter. Good to see ZK-JIL back in the air it's not that often NZ public get to see jet fighter in NZ skies with a lot of time and money coming out of volunteers pockets. www.sunlive.co.nz/news/21314-keeping-hawker-hunter-flying.html#
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Feb 19, 2012 9:21:42 GMT 12
You get what you pay for a general rule Very true. Just look at what we got to replace Otago & Taranaki.Thats a favourite gripe ofmine the polies not taking the long view and just seeing quick fix short term solutions.They only think in terms - three year electoral cycles. You can't do that with defence. Weren't they replaced with ex RN leanders Wellington and Southland ,Wellington was apparently in better nic than Canterbury when was decommissioned in 1999/2000. With the COTS commercial off the shelf IPVs it would of cost an extra 50000 to get mil spec Armidales class .Phil Goof was then defence minster so go figure.
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Feb 16, 2012 14:34:59 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Feb 15, 2012 21:08:25 GMT 12
Like most of the Navies ships - go for the cheapest option and have continual problems forever after. The 4 Patrol craft where like that - botched design on the cheap that made even the hardest old salts sea sick in certain conditions, and plagued by appalling Paxman V12's, that seemed to blow up at the slightest provocation. So, just following on in the Traditions of the RNZN......... Was that the Lake class patrol boats of the 70s 80s ?there's an ex HMNZs Hawera in Bayswater marina turned pleasure craft. Today's IPVs have a marine version of a V12 MAN B&W locomotive diesel for propulsion hasn't had any issues but had a couple niggles with the generators.
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Feb 13, 2012 22:07:53 GMT 12
Council zoning and location two main reasons I can think of .
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Feb 13, 2012 21:41:04 GMT 12
Don't think there was much sub killing by the sounds of the article.
Later that day a ‘detect and prosecute’ serial was run with the P-3K allocating a 60 mile square box for RANKIN to be inside and evade the aircraft. Turns out it can be difficult to see a submarine snorting from 32 miles away! Needless to say there was neither much detection nor prosecution, although a good learning serial for all involved, RANKIN taking the opportunity to gather intelligence on a passing merchant vessel at short notice, passing 1000
Do the P3K still have the orginal 60s era ASW sensors? I know the AsuW surface sensors were updated in early 80s and more recently in the P3k2.
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Feb 13, 2012 17:48:52 GMT 12
HMAS Choules has more space for cargo etc but lacks hangar and facities for helicopter embarked operations also large cranes Canterbury has. Once the defects are rectified on Canterbury should be more capable ship .As for rest of fleet think Resois getting pay offed this year Endevour has had main engine overhall and running on high sulfur desiel now ( which have to get in Oz) which is better lubricant for injectors and valves damping ,seemed to slove some engine issues prob could do with new machinery control system . Patrol fleet clocked up over 600 sea days which on average 2 ships patrolling EEZ on average day. ANZAC's still undergoing platform systems midlife upgrade to be followed by weapon combat system upgrade mid decade.
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Feb 9, 2012 14:25:27 GMT 12
Whats interesting its over 10 years after the maritime patrol review came out and we still don't have an effective aerial surveillance in place and nothing much has changed I think 5 squadron put out 40 hours per orion per ( edit my bad )year for civi departments. I agree you dont need high end military hardware when the basic role of defence forces civi tasks protect the EEZ isn't being met. (estimated 3000 hours per year to be effective)
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Feb 8, 2012 5:57:35 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Feb 7, 2012 22:09:02 GMT 12
You have to think beyond the radius of a helo operating off a ship at sea when talking about ASW and MPA. Maritime Patrol - Protection is not just about ASW. It is also about ASuW, ISR and covering a very large slice of the earths surface. You cannot do that with a helo. Helos have short legs and yes they may prosecute a sub contact, but a P3 or P8 can sit over that sub a lot longer than any helo. Yes an Amphib force will be subject to sub risk but that is just one threat amongst many. We still need eyes and ears over a very large area. The Second World War taught us all that. Nothing has changed from that basic principle except the technology. Protection of our SLOC is a many layered operation and just focussing on the microscale view obtained by a helo is patently stupid. You have to have the fixed wing P3 / P8 and the lighter fixed wing MPA option as well. Me, if I was organising our SLOC defence, I would want 24/7 satellite radar, lidar and optical coverage plus sigint fof the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean from 25 degrees south down to the Ice. Failing that a 1500nm radius around NZ. Plus the P3/P8, light MAP, shipborne helo and surface warship capability. It has to be multilayered. The technology is up there in satellites because I have used some of it from commercial satellites, at uni looking at ice shelf changes and other environmental data from Antarctica, like ice flows, ocean surface changes, ocean temperatures etc. Wouldn't the long range MPA role u state be better filled by a UAV Its hard to fathom why the NZDF would spend upto a billion US dollars n a squadron of P8A s when other projects such as Her cs , frigate other army replacements are also in the 5 yr same time frame. UAV can stay on station longer than manned MPA the air frame can be designed where human limitations of manned crew can be replaced with fuel storage more efficient engines weapon stores sensors etc A layered approach would use manned medium range MPA combined with Long range UAV the X47B for example prototype has range of operational 1500Nm with a 4500 pound bomb load. UAV would provide benefits for civi taskings as well being able to spend more time in actually in the air improving the whole overall maritime picture rather than patchy aerial surveillance (maritime patrol review 2001). Another good read is a paper done by Massey uni Center of defense studies titled "Could UAV's improve New Zealand's maritime security?"
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Feb 6, 2012 14:58:30 GMT 12
MPA are better surface warfare platforms heavier payloads Harpoon etc cover a greater distance range etc . ASW wise they need to drop sonor buoys remain on station to collect feed back in sweeps takes time particularly skill full placement to get results. Littoral is very important environment as this is where the task force is most venerable and a puts alot of high value assets and pers at risk see ROKS Cheosan or East Timor where HMNZS Canterbury was picking up submarine contacts. Remember talking to Aussie submariner when HMAS Rankin visited few years ago had a P3K dropping sonor buoys all over the Tasman and still not finding the sub. An expensive MPA 250 million us to 100 million for a Romeo means investment taken away from other cabilities see RAF Versus Fleet Air Arm = loss of carrier and flexible force projection for UK based land squadrons therefore UK defence looses out . The scrapped Nimrod NMR4 project cost 4 billion pounds which could been spent elsewhere. Currently the Seasprite uses commands from the OPs room utilising the Ships sonar to vector in on target deploying Torp or depth charge. Would be nice to have the MPA P8A but cost wise you are looking at Billion plus compared to cheaper ATR72 ASW variant . MH60R is expensive too but the capability is impressive better fits into the whole deployable JATF concept oppose to some thing based in NZ.
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Feb 6, 2012 12:17:39 GMT 12
If you want to invest in ASW capable platform you are better off purchasing a few MH60R's especially when the NZDF is investing in the joint amphibious task force . The hostile subs could pose a significant threat to the task force especially in the shallow littoral Environment where subs like new generation AIP diesel electric are hard to detect. MH60Rs can deploy a airborne low frequency dipping sonar speeding up the rate of detection which is not possible on fixed wing platform. They are more flexible as they can be deployed on a ship opposed to having a paved runway which may not allways available. ASW SH60 USN variants have replaced the fixed wing S3 vikings proving Airborne ASW force protection to highly valuable carrier battle groups and in the UK Nimrods ASW role has been replaced by ASW configured Type 23 and embarked Merlin. Purchasing MH60R and a few ATR72 (once the P3K2 past its support ability use able life) would make maximum capability with limited funding . 3:25 www.youtube.com/watch?v... 10 Feb 2010
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Feb 1, 2012 20:57:43 GMT 12
I think the Air Force will want to get some more use out of the P3K2 before they are considered for replacement plus the Orions range 4000+ nm compared to the 1000+ nm for the P8 would be better suited to our large EEZ.
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Feb 1, 2012 16:06:48 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Jan 31, 2012 19:18:42 GMT 12
Those ads bit misleading NZ Navy medical officers are hardly ever at sea let alone on an ops room or boarding parties, flight deck officer etc. Is the Air Force salute same as the Army hand wave?.
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Jan 31, 2012 19:00:23 GMT 12
Is there any chance the Roaring 40s Harvard display team could fill in for the checkers for the upcoming Waitangi celebrations?. They put on a great display yesterday's Auckland anniversary nothing like a screaming radial engine.
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Jan 29, 2012 18:31:36 GMT 12
In all seriousness though, where do Frigates fit into our threat response programme ? "Our frigates will provide a defensive shield,offensive support and intelligence and surveillance abilities to the JATF." Chief of Navy Rear Admiral Tony Parr NAVY TODAY 164 Dec 2011 Basically the Joint Amphibious Task Force is a move to operationalise the large bulk of the defence force moving away from the whole old camp /hangar based forces which will be mainly run by civies.
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Jan 27, 2012 20:29:11 GMT 12
The Brits will probably miss having access to Nimrods given their recent axeing Nimrods prob better off in scrap heap could only find one sub per 5000 hours in the air ,last Falklands conflict incorrectly identified a Argie destroyer as a fishing boat and merchant container ship as aircraft carrier. The best anti sub anti shipping is another sub.
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Jan 25, 2012 20:59:22 GMT 12
Not an aircraft to be dismissed for the RNZAF's future needs I would have thought? A better choice than a turbo-prop for CAS/Fleet Support training. RNZN Fleet support /CAS target towing training is already is already contracted out to civi company based out of Whenuapai use a Lear jet or citation. Think they used P51 Mustang at one stage remember gunners doing air defense exercise with 50 cal blanks around 2008 on Te Mana while getting strafed by a Mustang. www.aal.net.nz
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Jan 24, 2012 15:41:48 GMT 12
If Argentina retakes them there would be no need for the UK to rush into things this time. It is obvious they cannot defend them.... Nor can the Argentines for that matter. A fact Argentina would be well aware of.
If the Argentines decide to invade and bowl the token defenses over it can only mean one thing. Retaliation with the inevitable result......
Its highly unlikely the Argies would be able to take the Falklands again due to the technological superiority , training and experience of the Brits. The sort of kit they have now its far superior to 1982 TYPHOON ,ASTUTE CLASS, TYPE 45 DESTROYER ,RAPIER,TLAM,ASRAAM ,etc Plus 1200 Battle hardened veterans of IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN already stationed on island. I Think Argentina has 3 1960s-1970s era subs maybe one operational and hand full of 70s 60s mirages skyhawks era kept operational by cannibalizing the rest of the fleet. As for ground forces that have done the odd UN peace keeping mission.
|
|