|
Post by Calum on Feb 22, 2011 12:17:16 GMT 12
The aircraft come from a common fleet, so rather than having 6 painted grey for the Navy and having to repaint them when aircraft are swapped for servicings/ fleet management they are left the same.
Having a largely composite skin you also don’t want to be repainting them as much
I've also noticed they also have Navy on one side of the tailboom with Army on the other.
As for landing on grass, not sure where you got that idea Dave. I had a crap shot of it sitting in the long grass but don’t bother processing it
And to state the obvious (or what I thought was obvious ;D) re moving the landrover , there were actually 2 land rovers and i'd say they were training, both the crew and army guys on the ground.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 22, 2011 9:19:40 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 18, 2011 8:14:29 GMT 12
As they werr leased I'd exect we'd have run them through one the many USAF/OEM upgrade programmes.
We would be silly to go it alone noting the huge size of the F-16 fleet and huge numbers of upgrade programmes out there
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 17, 2011 13:48:59 GMT 12
I walk around the scrub there each day. Yesterday I spent a couple moments thinking about him
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 16, 2011 12:10:42 GMT 12
There's plenty of room in the rear cabin (sit's 5 comfortably)
Tall pilots will find the front a bit tight though
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 15, 2011 15:37:27 GMT 12
From what I've read they have had problems, particularly in the west with visibility whilst conducting ACM training.
From my understanding this higher viz scheme is being trialled to see if it makes the hawk slightly easier to acquire whilst in flight.
I’m not that keen on the paint job but I can understand the reasoning behind it.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 14, 2011 14:16:52 GMT 12
if you bought 2 dodgy products from a manufacturer would you buy a third?
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 11, 2011 20:37:33 GMT 12
"Oh, so you ADF guys wanted a working helicopter; one that can actually fly, carry things and be fully operational in a certain time period? Well, why didn't you just say so!" I wonder how the odds are looking now for the NFH winning the RAN contract for the Seahawk replacement? Poor I hope. we've bought 2 lemons from ECF ;D , why would we buy a third
|
|
|
TA-4K
Feb 10, 2011 17:12:11 GMT 12
Post by Calum on Feb 10, 2011 17:12:11 GMT 12
Pretty much for a pre Kahu T bird. But the post Kahu aircraft need new cockpits and various antennas if you want to be entirely accurate (not to take anyhting away from this build) Forgot to mention I mocked up the new instrument panels. I tried to get the aerials right from photos of 52 at Nowra, so I need to know where I screwed up so I can correct it. Thanks for the input Cheers Andy Andy Externally all I can see wrong is the ARC-159 antenna which should be on the lower part of the vertical stabilser. However, depending on the timeframe (early on) it could be on the nose door. Although I'm not sure all aircraft had it there inital. IIRC moving the antenna was one of the things that was changed from the original Kahu design
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 10, 2011 17:05:36 GMT 12
That they are made here is the best thing going for them. The Australian February 08, 2011 PROBLEMS affecting the cutting-edge MRH-90 military helicopter - a delayed multi-billion dollar contract threatened with listing on the government's notorious "projects of concern" blacklist - were being speedily resolved, its maker Australian Aerospace said yesterday. Contract delays are due to a recent mid-air engine failure, transmission oil cooler fan and windshield problems and uncertainties about spare parts supply. The most serious problem - an engine failure during trials in South Australia - resulted in the grounding of the helicopter by the Australian Defence Force. Last week Defence Minister Stephen Smith announced a high-level diagnostic review of the troubled program - an order for 46 helicopters to replace army's ageing Black Hawk and Navy's Sea King fleets. So far 13 MRH-90s have been accepted for testing, but the contract is behind schedule - 12 months for the navy and 18 months for the army. Commonwealth concerns are being worked through but some teething troubles for what is a cutting-edge helicopter are to be expected, said Australian Aerospace chief executive Jens Goennemann. “We're not talking about trivial or simple consumer products - we're talking about highly sophisticated, next-generation defence products,” Dr Goennemann said. The company “very much welcomed” the government's diagnostic review of the MRH-90 program as an opportunity to clarify certain misunderstandings about the contract. The MRH-90 is the world's leading helicopter in its class and will provide Australia with multi-role capabilities and remain at the forefront of military operations for the next 40 years, he said. “It is also important to realise that the MRH-90 is a first-of-type aircraft, in the formative stages of introduction to operational activity,” Dr Goennemann said. “As with any first-of-type aircraft, there are teething issues, but we (Australian Aerospace) firmly believe that's exactly what the MRH-90 is facing - teething issues,” he said.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 10, 2011 17:04:35 GMT 12
Nuclear or not, we'll need prefab subs
The Australian February 09, 2011 Large increases in Chinese military expenditure have encouraged defence planners to demand a craft to meet needs of a war between China and the US. PERHAPS it was Kevin Rudd's most impossible dream - a submarine fleet to face down China. But while the idea of building 12 of our own big boats is still government policy, experts argue the task is beyond us.
One solution canvassed this week is to go nuclear. The question is whether this would exchange one set of problems for another.
The centrepiece of the 2009 defence white paper was a fleet of 12 new submarines, capable of patrolling off north Asia and equipped with cruise missiles to be used to support US forces in any war with China. They would be conventional submarines and they would be built in South Australia.
The first of these submarines would need to be operational in the early 2020s, to begin replacing the navy's six Collins-class boats.
But alarm is growing among Australian shipbuilding experts about the extraordinary complexity of that project and the lack of time left to get these boats designed and built.
There's also deep concern Australia lacks the expert technicians to do even the basic design work.
An experienced British naval engineer with close experience of submarine construction and Australian defence projects tells The Australian that trying to produce a submarine able to carry out the sort of operations the government wants without help from a nation with a proven submarine industry is "a suicide mission".
"It's an enormous risk for Australia. My guess is that if they don't get help from somewhere it will be an enormous disaster and everyone will get very unhappy with the delays and costs."
The problem was put into sharp focus last week by the call from defence think tank the Kokoda Foundation for Australia to buy or lease 10 or 12-nuclear powered attack submarines from the US instead of trying to build a conventional fleet.
Kokoda founder Ross Babbage, a former defence official and senior academic, linked the need for this force to the increasing military power of China, which he said was the greatest security challenge faced by Australia since World War II.
Babbage said in some ways Chinese strategic thinking was similar to that employed by the Japanese in planning its attack on Pearl Harbor.
He said China was expected to extend its military reach to Australia's immediate surrounds during the next 20 years, which makes it crucial for Australia and the US to maintain close dialogue with Beijing.
But other defence experts and China watchers who have their own concerns about Beijing's military expansion are startled by Babbage's assessment.
The Kokoda report, Australia's Strategic Edge in 2030, details increasing Chinese defence spending on sophisticated aircraft, ships, submarines, missile systems that could destroy giant US aircraft carrier groups, as well as cyber warfare technology, and sets out how Australia should arm itself to deal with them.
But Paul Dibb, author of a previous white paper and emeritus professor at the Australian National University, says the Kokoda suggestions are based on misinterpretations of Chinese intentions.
Dibb says that because the Kokoda report claims the backing of senior Australian officials, Beijing was likely to take it seriously and the Gillard government should formally reject the document's key claims.
"It suggests we decapitate the leadership and foment revolt. This is a nuclear-armed power."
Dibb says while China was developing a sophisticated defence capability, as would any emerging power, it had not displayed any imperialist ambitions.
While it could buy the raw materials to feed its industrial expansion, it had no need to go to war to obtain them.
In any case, it would be many years before China's military power could match that of the US, Dibb says.
But the renewed China ruckus has put the spotlight firmly on the white paper and the ambitious submarine plan.
In the past, apart from deep political and social objections to nuclear power, key submarine experts have dismissed the idea of Australia opting for nuclear subs because of the cost, and because the nation has no nuclear industry to repair and maintain them.
The 2009 white paper gave no estimate of what 12 new conventional subs would cost but analyst Andrew Davies of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute suggested about $36 billion.
However, Babbage, a member of the government's advisory panel for the defence white paper, says the nuclear submarines could be acquired for much less than it would cost to build 12 conventional submarines.
Babbage tells The Australian that 10 of the US Navy's new Virginia-class attack submarines could be bought and equipped for a total of $28bn.
He says they could operate with US boats sharing an Australian naval base, and be maintained by US nuclear experts.
But the British engineer says that while buying a fleet of nuclear submarines was easy to suggest, it would prove extremely difficult and expensive.
"In many practical ways a nuclear submarine would be perfect for Australia, with it's almost infinite range and stealth, but it would be fraught with political difficulties."
For a start, the government would have to embark on a campaign to persuade the community that it should aspire to a nuclear fleet.
The US government would also be very reluctant to allow American companies to sell nuclear technology to a non-nuclear nation, so getting that approval would be an enormous and complicated process.
"The Americans have never done that before," the engineer says.
"And if they did agree, once you started getting the real numbers in, I think [it] would scare Australia off. I don't think anybody could argue that nuclear could be cheaper."
Ten nuclear submarines would probably cost $30bn to buy, he says. "But it would could cost you $100 million to deliver them and support them through life."
That would be well over twice the cost of obtaining and operating a conventional sub.
It seems the government has badly underestimated the complexity of its conventional submarine project, the level of skills needed to build the vessels and the time it would take.
To carry the supplies, fuel, missiles and other equipment through a vast operational area, the new submarine would need to be very large compared with existing conventional boats, "certainly beyond what anyone has achieved to date", the British expert says.
"You are taking on the most complicated engineering production project conceivable."
He says submarines are harder to build than even the most complex aircraft or spacecraft.
"Even NASA would say that's about the most ambitious project one could conceive."
Finding enough skilled workers would itself be a huge challenge.
To make it work, Australia would need to form an alliance with another nation with the industrial expertise and people to do much of the design and engineering work, the engineer says.
Davies says that in the white paper the government was keeping its options open to join the Americans in a conflict in the western Pacific - with China specifically.
"What the white paper describes is actually a very good match to a nuclear attack submarine, but it's not well matched to any conventional submarine that exists at the moment," Davies says.
"Either we'd have to design and build a very sophisticated, complex and probably very large conventional submarine, or we'll have to compromise on what we can achieve."
The Collins-class design could be developed into a sort of Collins Mark II, what the navy calls an "enhanced Collins", which could do some, but not all, of the things the government wants.
Davies says an option is to buy off-the-shelf European boats, assemble them in Australia and accept the capability limitations that come with that.
The Royal Australian Navy argues strongly that small European submarines would lack the range to cover the vast distances across which Australian submarines need to operate.
Davies suggests that to overcome the range limitations they could operate from a forward US base: for instance, Guam in the Pacific or Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
There are also serious issues about whether the new submarines could be built in time, he says.
"We have a Collins fleet that still has some question marks hanging over it in terms of sustainability," Davies says.
It would probably take 15 years to design and build a submarine from scratch and get the first of them operational.
The government wants the first boat in the water by the early 2020s, and there isn't enough time to do that.
Davies says there were very big decisions to be made and not a lot of planning had been done.
"We've probably eaten up a fair chunk of the time that was required," he says.
"Another possibility was to taking the existing Collins submarines and refurbish them with new diesels and whatever new systems the design would have room for.
"Given we're rapidly running out of time for the blank sheet of paper solution, it's going to come down to a choice between a Collins Mk II and a European boat."
"We've probably run out of time to design and build it - or if we haven't, then we soon will."
Davies says that although buying or leasing nuclear submarines from the US is an option, it raises the question of whether the Americans would be willing to part with them.
If Australia tries to operate nuclear submarines without a nuclear industry, it would run up against crippling regulatory and safety requirements, he says.
"Every time you take a spanner to a pipe up in the back end of the boat, you'd need a nuclear-qualified technician and a whole range of inspection regimes in place," Davies says.
"It would cost an arm and a leg and make the whole thing impractical.
"We're left with the aspirations for a submarine that looks like a nuclear submarine but isn't."
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 9, 2011 17:03:03 GMT 12
It now doesn't look like the books are going to be here in time for an ANZAC Day launch (they are getting printed in China). Now looking like mid May... Thats it, I'm cancelling my order
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 9, 2011 12:57:09 GMT 12
Hope the RNZAf doesn't have teh same problems the ADF is having
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 5, 2011 10:21:34 GMT 12
Don't get too hopeful Jasper, the RAF is demobbing squadrons and staff more rapidly than we are and may not be flying much at all by 2016. They may not be taking foreign nationals by then as their won't be enough places for their own countrymen and women. You might be better off joining the RAAF. Despite the cuts the RAF will remain reasonably potent. But your advice on the RAAF is spot on. Knowing what I know now I would join the ADF over the NZDF if I had my time again (despite all the Australians it contains ;D)
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 4, 2011 12:53:06 GMT 12
I was there that day with 2 Sqn. I recall "Blood" got a telling off after his display He was only a junior squadron "Bog Rat" and wasn't an authorised low level display pilot! He was only supposed to do a few simulated attack runs on the tank but the cloud base was very low so he "had" to stay down in the weeds ;D From memory we had the aircraft fully loaded up with weapons too so it looked very "wary". That was our first airshow in Aussie. Calum might also remember it. Do you have any photos of that day Craig? I was there that day as well Don. I do recall the weather was crap and he got told off when he got home. My main memory of the day was starting the aircraft with a heap of people standing about 10-15 metres behind it, even after we’d told them they should move. Several guys were leaning into the jet blast taking photos directly into the exhaust. I remember another good beat up done by Scott Armor leaving East Sale in 1992. IIRC the boss had a word with him after that as well. That was one very ugly trip
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 1, 2011 13:37:27 GMT 12
it's a fantasy IMHO
|
|
|
TA-4K
Jan 25, 2011 17:14:35 GMT 12
Post by Calum on Jan 25, 2011 17:14:35 GMT 12
Nice job. Is that kit TA-4K proper? Pretty much for a pre Kahu T bird. But the post Kahu aircraft need new cockpits and various antennas if you want to be entirely accurate (not to take anyhting away from this build)
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Jan 22, 2011 8:22:15 GMT 12
There are plenty of photos on the A-4 Alley (see link in my sig)
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Jan 20, 2011 10:36:47 GMT 12
Slight pedantic comment. You don't "win" a victoria Cross. It's not a prize
You are awarded it.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Jan 19, 2011 20:13:43 GMT 12
|
|