|
Post by gibbo on May 2, 2017 16:49:12 GMT 12
sorry have not read the whole thread ............... but what was the secret bombing mission for the B17 (or ............. what target would be in that range ?) That's the $million$ question that no-one's ever been able to answer, publicly at least.
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on May 2, 2017 16:46:14 GMT 12
I'd been led to believe the crash site was on the farm literally across the road from the end of the runway. Is that not the case then? No, it's about 2.6km from the south end of the main runway.
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on May 1, 2017 22:37:09 GMT 12
Does anyone know exactly where the crash site is? Is it on or near the extended runway centreline? An historical account I found mentions it was near to the Sinton Homestead, which was blown off its foundations. The Sintons were the original landowner in the Whenuapai area. The Whenuapai historical register shapeauckland.co.nz/media/1628/preliminary-historic-heritage-assessment.pdf makes no mention of the B17 crash site, but does locate a DC3 and Hudson under the mudflats. It shows the Sinton Homestead up near the roundabout on the left of the picture. My hope is that the imminent development is connected with the subdivision that is already taking place to the north of the picture (and north of the strip of dirt that is needed for a runway extension). Yes can pinpoint it for you, but it's actually to the left of the map image shown above. I'll have a go at taking a snip & uploading it. Nah sorry, I'm a numpty, searched help etc but work out how to attach a file...! Go to Fred Taylor Drive (old SH16) in Google maps & find section/address 122. Zoom in, crash site is in the paddock running up to the fence directly across the road from 122 (On the airfield side of the road). It's pretty much in a line with the main runway.
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on May 1, 2017 19:41:34 GMT 12
Yes I thought the same thing, survivors?? Yeah I viewed the air crash report at NZ Archives a couple of years back & have just dug out my notes. 11 on board all named and 11 deaths listed - although I didn't specifically read 'no survivors'... pretty sure they all perished. Cause undetermined and considered engine problems unlikely even though it had earlier engine issues that delayed the flight about 24 hours. Considered most likely cause to be temporary night blindness as airfield lights were used for takeoff & apparently switched off almost immediately. I'm picking like most a/c crashes there was a combination of factors & surely those earlier engine problems can't be discounted but I doubt the engines were in any fit state to divulge any evidence after the blast. Headed to Melbourne - 'purpose & instructions unknown'. Heading to Aussie fully bombed certainly wouldn't be normal but AFAIK there is talk a bomb-sight (Norden?) was recovered from the crash very quickly by American personnel. There were 2 'notables'listed as passengers - E.W. Hurst (USN) & Cpt. J. Gilbert (French Navy), the latter being the aide to the French High Commissioner for the Pacific. The remaining 9 were all USAAF personnel.
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Apr 30, 2017 13:48:34 GMT 12
Well that's me shot down in flames thankyou Mr Errol C.Sounds like we have a real crisis on our hands according to you.I would lay odds five squadron could keep those P3s flying if they had to which is their job.So what if I said something that's already been covered,no harm in refreshing peoples memorys mate.It would seem there is no suitable replacement for an orion except another Orion.If the p8 is not up to search and rescue then its a waste of space. Can you explain how "five squadron could keep those P3s flying if they had to which is their job" if particular spare parts are no longer available? Our P-3's are now over 50 years old (the design is even older), there comes a time when manufacturers stop making parts. Dave H. as covered it extensively - we have reached that time, parts are no longer being made, and available spares have been snapped up by other P-3 operators. Who has said the P-8 is "not up to search and rescue"? Certainly not the RNZAF, RAAF and the USN and they would know better than anyone else. What the P-8 will offer the RNZAF in terms of SAR is a faster transit time to the search area, which increases the likelihood of survival for those in distress. As a personal aside, to complement the potential fewer P-8 numbers I'd like to see "some" of the air transport replacements (eg A400M or C-130J) fitted with an electro-optical camera system, to allow them to contribute as secondary SAR assets (as well as come in handy for overland missions). These are relatively inexpensive but I wouldn't hold by breath this would happen. I had an inkling that I'd heard the variation of the engines used on the P3's are also having support cut off but AFAIK they are only a minor variation from what the C130H (ie: 'older Hercs') use so I'm happy to be corrected on that score. Main points are - yes the P3 fleet will quite likely be unviable as a force in 5 years or so therefore a new fleet of something is required soon. All P8A operators including allies RAAF, USN & RAF, will use the P8 for long distance SAR, along with the myriad other tasks it can perform. None seem to have aproblem operating down low but just like P3 that will impact airframe & engine stress. Those myriad of tasks are something that the NZ Govt has decided the NZDF needs to get back into - they want the P8 expressly because they want to step up & play with the big boys... seamless coalition operations! Yes the P8 will be more focused on working with allies - that's the point, this is what the Govt (this one at least) wants the P3 replacement to do. What as already been widely discussed around the traps is the 42 sqn Kingair fleet has a lease expiring Sept this year and is to be replaced with a fleet of either B200 or B350 (which is yet to be determined) also leased, but expressly with the capability to operate SAR type sensor equipment. It's a 7 year lease after which a change in direction to a larger suitable type could occur, but no-one can foretell that for certain yet. So the lower end jobs currently undertaken by the P3's will be looked after by 42 sqn fleet at some point, perhaps longer term seeing 5 sqn get a smaller type... no-one knows yet.
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Apr 29, 2017 23:01:30 GMT 12
If the plan is for them do what the USN, RAAF and RAF do then we will not see them operate in NZ. As far as low level operation is concerned you can expect more rebuilds earlier rather than later as the 737 was never intended to go low and slow in fine conditions let alone storms. No problem for the USN as they have a gigabuck budget. The NZ role is closer to the USCG since we have no similar independent operation. I understand the area off Hawaii had already been searched and the P3 had been asked to keep an eye out. So getting back to the original thread A C130J with a palletised load can do the USCG mission, the US Navy antiSUW and antiSub mission, can operate as a tanker and do the Tactical mission as well as combat tasking and other bits and pieces which is what this thread started as. You have this huge space where you could even have a game of pool or two if you wanted. Think it simply comes down to NZDF wanting the a/c to perform the same role as everyone else's P8's (ie: far more than just MSA) and given we intend to operate with & integrate seemlessly with those of our allies that we need to buy kit that is set up from the get-go to do just that. Otherwise NZDF will be looking to get another manufacturer (LM) to put together a mission systems package that is likely to require substantial upfront integration costs - costs the NZDF needs to avoid wherever possible. I appreciate operating down low has it's issues but it will only operate low when it has to. Apparently the P8 is not only quite capable down low, but far more comfortable than the P3 if this link is to be believed... www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/the-p-8a-poseidon-adventure-flying-and-fighting-the-poseidon/ “...The employment will be very similar [to the P-3],” Buck counters. “A myth that I’d like to bust is that the P-8 is not able to fly low. This initial lot of aircraft with the Mk.54 torpedo system will fly a very similar profile to the P-3. They’ll go down low. We fly the P-8 in a very similar flight regime to the P-3, and we will employ the Mk.54 from low altitude.” How does it fly down in the waves? “It’s quite a bit more comfortable,” Boron says. “With the [more] flexible wings, the crew isn’t getting bounced around as much as in the P-3. It flies very smoothly down low...”
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Apr 29, 2017 22:44:44 GMT 12
And 5,4,3,2,1... cue...Labour & Greens tell us about how they'll reverse any such purchase and put the $$$ into social services (yeah $1.4Bn will get you a few months welfare cheques then ...gone!)
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Apr 29, 2017 16:50:52 GMT 12
Technically this is not confirmation of an order and only in January Brownlee suggested a decision unlike ly this year so this may be more about keeping the option open.
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Apr 29, 2017 16:38:20 GMT 12
What is the primary role of a Maritime Surveillance aircraft. Now thats tricky. The P8 is primarily configured to locate and presumably try to sink Russian surface vessels and with optional drones to try to do the same with submarines. Now how many Russian warships have you seen down thisaway lately? ? Now I have no doubt that the P8 can probably locate Kutsnetsov and using Harpoon or its replacement damage or sink it but frankly it is going to struggle against submarines since AIP means that no longer will you be able to detect a snort by RDF nor will you be able to "smell" diesel emissions. As far as dropping sonobuoys go a RN SSN driver said the only time he was detected he was "very close". They are also only useful in the layer they are set normally on the surface. If the U Boats (whoops) go below that layer they are useless.Hunting submarines has changed since WW2 and frankly aircraft are no longer an answer. As far as effectiveness of the P3 and P8 in SAR goes they should ask the USN. A returning P3 was asked to help US Navy P8's and USCG C130s to help search for a missing boat off Hawaii. Guess who found the boat? Premier MSA? Bollocks. The P8 got the US contract because it had better influence in Congress. The USN tried twice to get more P3s but were denied. NZ has commitments to patrolling one of the largest oceanic areas in the world. That is why we need a MSA not to patrol for non-existent Russian warships. If the poo ever did hit the fan it would all be over before you got MinDef out of bed anyway. The RNZAF have asked for more than just a MSA however & that now looks like what they might be getting... something that can step up a significant level if a combat tasking is required (with suitable coalition support). I've seen earlier discussion suggesting the USN feel the P8 can do SAR quite well, and operate low down ok, but that for them that is not their primary role - that's the domain of the USCG. I think there's been confusion between what the P8 can do vs what it is being asked to do - USN & USCG have very different requirements. RAAF, RAF P8's will fill a role more like whatever the RNZAF get. Maybe that P3 found the missing vessel because it was allocated the search areas the vessel was actually in!?! p.s. Need to move this to the P3K2 replacement thread now I think.
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Mar 6, 2017 20:08:09 GMT 12
Great shots Mr Hall. was wondering if you had any static shots of the NH90 that had the external fuel tanks fitted. Haven't seen any flying here with them on. It won't be as good as Sam's (taken with my vidcam) but it may be of help. Look good with the tanks! My memory is shocking - what about gun mounts on our NH90s - do they have them?
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Mar 1, 2017 19:29:44 GMT 12
You do all realise that the P-3K2 has stealth mode, right? Ah, of course.... silly me! Another reason I guess I may have missed it was with the sun out I was guzzling water & therefore making regular trips to the 'amenities trailer' and believe me, there was nothing stealth about me on one of those sorties!!!
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Mar 1, 2017 16:52:10 GMT 12
In that case I totally missed 06 - I never saw it on Saturday, but to be fair from lunchtime onwards I stayed around the crowdline and jet park. Up til then it was helis > Singapore Herc > RNZAF Herc > RAAF C-17 > fence > Seasprite. Disappointing as I was keen to have a look! The static P-3 wasn't there in the morning on the Saturday. It went on display after the massed formation flypast in the afternoon (which didn't happen on the Saturday despite all of the aircraft taking off for it!). Wow that is so totally weird that I didn't see it Saturday - the a/c in front of the RAAF C17 were not far from where we sat for the day & I wandered over there a few times... then mooched around those a/c after the event, to give time fro traffic to clear. Agree it wasn't there Sat morning but it must've also snuck away quickly at the end... I'm still scratching my head! I sooooo wan't to see it even though I knew a walk-thru was not an option.
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Feb 28, 2017 17:00:43 GMT 12
What is AAR? The squadron that the two F-15's that visited came from, No. 149 Squadron "The Fighting Shikras" is a mixed squadron with just five F-15's and the rest of the unit are Tiger II's. I wonder if we might see some other types like that as well if this goes ahead. Sorry... meant wonder if they'll have tankers come & go...currently KC135 but A330-MRTT on order I believe.
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Feb 28, 2017 15:51:38 GMT 12
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't NZ4206 a P3K2? That was parked both days until about 1630 Sunday in front of the Australian C-17 and a Singaporean C-130. NZ4202 was the active one. Another aircraft I think should have been on display, which I'm sure I did see on the Feilding bound bus, just as we were leaving, was an Iroquois. It was hidden somewhat behind a building. As for the bus going the wrong way that seems very strange although I'm not disputing it. All the buses seemed to be traveling in pairs or threesomes so why one driver failed to keep with others or follow the clearly marked road signs erected for the buses I don't know. The (correct) entrance my buses used was signposted "VIP and bus entrance". As for the air show I thought it was very good although I gathered it was meant to go right through to 1600. I know the exact spot you are refering to - but all day Saturday a very fat-slug like (but still gorgeous!) C-130H was sitting there - definitely no P3K2 - must've changed over before Sunday.
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Feb 28, 2017 15:47:55 GMT 12
Ah, of course, it's his electorate. His party overlords will likely have different views though. Yeah but I figure that now he's on record as supporting it the overlords will have a harder job to dismiss it off hand. I get the impression there might be other locations they are looking at? From what I can see the F15SG can happily handle Ohakea's runway length, so wonder if the talk of wanting a longer main could suggest they might want to have a AAR coming & going on a semi-regular basis... or even be based there & rotated out
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Feb 27, 2017 20:41:18 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Feb 27, 2017 20:33:11 GMT 12
I did Saturday only and very happy with the whole thing (except wind spoiling Black Falcons high-display & mass fly-past)... has anyone seen any mention of visitor numbers? Did feel a little light but hard to gauge being spread over such a large area.
Just a couple of little things... of the scenarios, maritime = lack of P3K2 handling display of old; army = a little too drawn-out, but not a major!
My biggest niggle was the lack of a P3K2 on static & what we did see of it in the air was a little tame. It departed back to Whenuapai without landing due, apparently, to the requirement for it to remain on SAR standby.... really? I know one is headed to the Middle East but there would've been another 4 (somewhere) & surely a crew to spare!?! Yes as you guessed P3K2 is pretty much my favourite RNZAF platform.
...Gibbo
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Feb 8, 2017 18:28:21 GMT 12
The I model Sprites are just a 'temporary' aircraft until a better option became available to use due to the existing tooling and knowledge of the Seasprite platform. It made sense to get these in the interim, although many may disagree. I'm not so sure temporary is the best word, the capability plan shows investments in the SH-2Gi out to 2023 which means they'll see a couple of years at least after that (to ensure a ROI) and the same doc has no 'SH-2Gi replacement' flagged in it's project timelines out to 2030. Their replacement will get 'flagged' early next decade but it certainly suggests to me we'll get the 13 years out to 2030 from the fleet. The latest APDR magazine (no charge, just register your email address & you're away!) has a very interesting 3 page article on NZ's SH-2Gi and concludes with a whole sub-section asking when will they be replaced - which concurs with the way I interpret the capability plan. It gives a good reasoning of why 2030 is quite achievable - but I'm happy to be corrected! www.asiapacificdefencereporter.com/
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Feb 8, 2017 16:55:14 GMT 12
With the navy due for a replacement multi-role vessel to replace the HMNZS Endeavour (tanker), an option is to replace the current I model Seasprites with a naval version of the NH90 I guess pretty much in the same vein as my response to the post by dutchkiwi... such an option is not in anyway broached in the white paper or capability plan so it is extremely unlikeky that such an option is even casually being considered at present. Given the SH-2Gi has only literally just entered servcie the question of it's replacement won't appear in any white papers for some years.
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Feb 8, 2017 16:48:50 GMT 12
Thanks Gibbo for reply. Are those 'white papers' mention only the possible new Transport aircraft (and P-3 replacement?) or anything more? Believe there was also some plans to have a trio more A-109's right? Cheers from Holland. The white paper & capability plan can be found here... www.defence.govt.nz/ ...well worth a read. AFAIK the idea of 3 extra A-109 was mooted in the previous white paper but no further public discussion has occurred on the matter and the most recent white paper clealry indicates the fleet will remain at 5.
|
|