jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on May 15, 2018 12:13:33 GMT 12
As I understand it, there is not a lot importance in having an A/c capable of carrying NH 90's. For the likely area of operations they are fully capable of flying their selves there. Can a LAV fly itself? The problem with HMNZS Canterbury is that it is not "Rapid" and there is no guarantee the Aussies (or anyone else) would be able to assist with C17s if there was an urgent requirement. Not that it is desirable to fly armoured vehicles anywhere anytime but the capability would be useful. Also NH90 ferry range is about 650 miles which covers Lord Howe and Norfolk Islands. You could probably jack up extra range with custom fuel tanks but this has caused trouble on other aircraft. The only other option would be to refuel from.....HMNZS Canterbury?
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on May 14, 2018 14:30:38 GMT 12
But can you fit an NH90 or LAV into a C130? It will depend on whether the government wants to add this capability in which case it is Airbus or Kawasaki. I suspect that in the end it will be the $ that decides.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on May 9, 2018 14:07:29 GMT 12
Probably overspecifying the platform(still...),a bit of greed ,and the US forces lurching between Lockhheed and Boeing for big contracts,ones up, ones down. This was won in Congress where Boeing had the numbers. I think the USN would have preferred waiting for the drones to be proven to work before going down the P8 way.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on May 9, 2018 9:00:03 GMT 12
Try the Russian Embassy. Simon says they have lots of spies!
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Apr 22, 2018 18:33:56 GMT 12
They received all 28 although one might have been a replacement. These were all upgraded prior to delivery. They also received 18 brand new F16C/D aircraft. Uncle Sam's options were limited for moving heavy equipment as Afghanistan is surrounded by China, Iran, Pakistan and two of the Islamic Russian republics. Pakistan were lucky. NZ could have had issues if they leased these aircraft and tried to move through Islamic nations like....Indonesia or Malaysia? Shame that the US did not just offer ex US stocks or even better some F18's.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Apr 19, 2018 8:59:17 GMT 12
Makes the 10 year lease on 28 F-16's for NZ$13M a year (back in 1998) look pretty good doesn't it! Would have been great if the US actually owned the aircraft. Those were in fact were the property of Pakistan who had already paid Uncle Sam. We would have lost them anyway when the US needed Karachi after 9/11.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Apr 15, 2018 12:34:14 GMT 12
Time for serious jail time for these idiots if they catch them? Or ban lasers and drones except competent commercial users?
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Feb 7, 2018 9:06:20 GMT 12
AB is just the Swedish equivalent of a "Limited Liability" Company Aktiebolag (AB for short)
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Dec 29, 2017 10:21:16 GMT 12
The Appeal Court stated that Wellington (and presumably other NZ airports) should use the recommended safety limit 240 M, not the minimum 90 M. That is how this mess started. It seems ridiculous to me if you have a runway 1700 m long and you wanted to extend it to 2000 M that it should require a longer RESA than one already 2000 M long that had not been extended. NZALPA thinking astounds! Queenstown can "easily" extend to the lake end by purchasing the properties between the runway end and the lake. This would be quite expensive as land values are quite high. The river end is more difficult but the Queenstown Airport masterplan includes proposals to extend both ways. As far as EMAS is concerned this will reduce take off length available by whatever length is chosen. Some overseas airports use 50 M at each end. NZALPA have stated they want Wellington to include 100 M. If you took off 100 M at each end of Queenstowns runway you would say goodbye to services to Aussie. If you took off 300 M for a 240 M RESA that would reduce takeoff length by 150 M and landing length by 300 M. Goodbye to jet services unless they bring back the old BAer whisperjets. NZALPA were looking only to block the extension to prevent overseas competition. This may in fact backfire if WIAL decide to add the difference to take the extension to the final 655 M as per their future plans. If that happens the overseas airlines will be even more interested. The Supreme Court indicated an extra 50 M RESA might be acceptable making a total 140 M with a corresponding increase of 50 M for take off but no change in landing distance however the SC decision is unfortunately unclear as to what is actually required.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Nov 10, 2017 7:39:35 GMT 12
I doubt if Marks is interested in Ocean anyway' She carries a crew of 285 not much different FROM Albion despite being a much larger ship compared with Canterbury's 53. (Incidentally Ocean is a LPH not an LPD) For the record Canterbury is classed as a AKRH/AX. The Aussies bought a 2nd hand Bay Class LSD off the UK and of course the 2 Newport Class from the US which turned out to be rust buckets. The need here is for a vessel able to land using both NH90 and a medium sized landing craft which cannot be launched by davits or cranes, or at least those carried by Canterbury. Canterbury was a huge advance on the Charles Upham but was still only a compromise on a real landing ship. The other issue with Ocean apart from crew size and the fact she is also limited to "small" landing craft is that she would be too large for Devenport to dock as she is 670 feet in length and has a 112 foot beam?
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Nov 9, 2017 20:19:43 GMT 12
I think you will find Ocean has stern and side doors and she carries some small landing craft launched by davits. Effectively just a larger version of HMNZS Canterbury with a "through deck". She was designed as a LPD version of the Invincible carrying assault helos only. Shame Albion and Bulwark are not available but with the current UK PM May who knows, they "may" become available too!
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jul 13, 2017 11:52:15 GMT 12
The saga of the 28 (not 32 I'm not sure where I saw that figure) F16 in PAF
Peace Gate I
In December 1981, the government of Pakistan signed a letter of agreement for the purchase of up to 40 F-16A/B (28 F-16A and 12 F-16B) fighters for the Pakistan Fiza'ya (Pakistan Air Force, or PAF). The deal would be split into two batches, one of 6 aircraft and the other of 34. The first aircraft were accepted at Fort Worth in October of 1982, and the first F-16, flown by Squadron Leader Shahid Javed, landed in Pakistan at Sargodha Air Base on January 15th, 1983 as part of a package of 6 'Peace Gate I' aircraft (2 A's and 4 B's).
Pakistani F-16A #82702 over the Indus river, near Attock. Note the standard PAF F-16 color scheme. [Photo by Saeed Ahmed Siddique] Peace Gate II
The remaining 34 aircraft were delivered under Peace Gate II. The Pakistani F-16A/B's are all Block 15 aircraft, the final version of the F-16A/B production run, and are powered by the Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-200 turbofan. All 40 'Peace Gate I & II' aircraft were delivered between 1983 and 1987. By 1997, 8 aircraft of the initial Peace Gate I & II order have been written off in various mishaps, hence 32 remain in service and despite the embargo, caused by the Pakistan-specific Pressler Amendment (see below), are being fully supported by commercial contracts.
The F-16s were assigned USAF serial numbers for record-keeping purposes, and carry a three-digit PAF serial number on their noses; the F-16A's being assigned numbers in sequence beginning with 701, and the F-16B's being assigned numbers beginning with 601. The two digit prefix preceding these numbers is the year of delivery of these aircraft. The PAF Falcons have a slightly altered color scheme, with the dark gray area covering most of the wings and the aft part of the horizontal tailplanes and carry toned-down markings: the national flag (normally a white moon and star on green field) on the tail and roundels on the upper wing surface. Peace Gate III
Seven years after the first order, in December of 1988, Pakistan ordered 11 additional F-16A/B Block 15 OCU (Operational Capability Upgrade) aircraft (6 Alpha and 5 Bravo models) under the Peace Gate III program. These aircraft were purchased as attrition replacements and fully paid for, but are still awaiting delivery in the Arizona Desert. The reason for this is that Pakistan got involved in a controversy with the United States over its suspected nuclear weapons capability. Intelligence information reaching US authorities indicated that Pakistan was actively working on a nuclear bomb, had received a design for a bomb from China, had tested a nuclear trigger and was actively producing weapons-grade uranium. Furthermore, the F-16A's of no 9 and 11 squadrons at Sargodha AB have allegedly been modified to carry and deliver a Pakistani nuclear weapon. In addition, Pakistan has steadfastly refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
As a result, in accordance to the Pressler amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act, which forbids military aid to any nation possessing a nuclear explosive device, the United States government announced on October 6th, 1990 that it had embargoed further arms deliveries to Pakistan. The 11 Peace Gate III aircraft were consequently stored at AMARC (Aircraft Maintenance and Regeneration Center) at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona, also known as the Boneyard. There, they were put in 'Flyable Hold' for 5 years, during which time 85% of each aircraft's fuel system was preserved with JP-9, and each aircraft had its engine run once every 45 days. This resulted in the curious situation that most of those aircraft now have more engine run time than air time, the latter being only 6 hours. This low air-time figure, plus the fact that these aircraft are the most modern F-16A/B's built, is the main reason why countries interested in second-hand F-16s first look at the Pakistani airframes. Peace Gate IV
In September of 1989, plans were announced by Pakistan to acquire 60 more F-16A/B's. A contract was signed in the same year under the Peace Gate IV Foreign Military Sales Programs, for the delivery of 60 F-16s for US $1.4 billion or approximately US $23 million a piece. By March of 1994, 11 of these planes had been built and were directly flown into the Sonoran desert where they joined the 11 Peace Gate III aircraft in storage. A further six aircraft were stored by the end of 1994, so that a total of 17 aircraft (7 F-16A's and 10 F-16B's) of the Peace Gate IV order are now stored. A stop-work order affected the remaining 43 planes of the Peace Gate IV contract.
The Brown amendment later eased the restrictions on weapon exports to Pakistan, but specifically excluded the F-16s from this release. Pakistan had already paid $685 million on the contract for the first 28 F-16s (11 Peace Gate III and 17 Peace Gate IV), and insisted on either having the planes it ordered delivered or getting its money back. The saga of the embargoed F-16s
In March 1996, nine aircraft out of those which had already been manufactured for Pakistan, were sold to Indonesia. However, Indonesia cancelled this order on June 2nd, 1997. This 'unexpected' trouble with the Indonesian F-16 deal means a bigger problem to the Clinton administration both with respect to Pakistan and Indonesia. President Clinton had pledged to the Pakistan Prime Minister, Ms. Benazir Bhutto, that the money paid for the F-16s by Islamabad would be reimbursed if the equipment could not be delivered. In trying to come to terms with Islamabad's demand that Washington would return the money, the Clinton administration went on to see if the planes could be sold to a third country and the proceeds transferred. Interested buyers included amongst others the Republic of China.
At the end of 1997, with chances of finding a buyer close to zero, it was decided to take the PAF F-16s out of flyable hold and into the Boneyard. The airframes were offered to the Philippine Air Force, in view of its modernization plans. However, lack of funds precluded this deal as well.
In May 1998, a rumour suggested that the 28 Pakistani AF F-16A/B aircraft stored at the AMARC could possibly be donated to the Air Force of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as a part of the US led 'Train & Equip' program. As Pakistan is already taking part in this program (training Bosnian Army Anti-tank missile teams), this is a solution that could satisfy both sides in this long dispute. Again, this proved to be not viable.
After the detonation of five nuclear devices by India in May 1998, in a remote area close to its border with Pakistan, Washington feared that this might escalate the old border dispute between Pakistan and India to a full crisis. In order to keep Pakistan from responding to this challenge, US president Bill Clinton suggested that the 28 stored F-16s would be delivered after all, in batches of 1 or 2. However, the internal pressure on the government proved to strong and shortly after India's demonstration, Pakistan responded by detonating an unknown number of nuclear devices.
Finally, on December 1st, 1998, the New Zealand Government announced that it would lease-buy the 28 Pakistani F-16s stored at the AMARC. Three days later, the United States said they hoped for an 'early and fair' agreement on how to compensate Islamabad for its aborted purchase of US F-16 fighters. President Clinton briefed Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on US efforts to compensate Pakistan for the $658 million it paid for the 28 F-16s. US officials said the United States has already paid $157 million of this back to Islamabad, raising the money by selling aircraft components to other countries. New Zealand agreed to pay some $105 million over 10 years to lease the fighters, providing additional funds that could be used to give Pakistan some of its money back.
At the end of 1998, the United States announced it would pay Pakistan $326.9 million in cash and up to $140 million in other compensation to settle the eight-year dispute. The $140 million will include about $60 million in US white wheat that Pakistan will receive during the current US fiscal year, which began on October 1st. The remaining $80 million in compensation will be negotiated by the two sides. The F-16 issue has been a headache for Pakistan, which is grappling to repay millions of dollars on its $32 billion in foreign debt amid a hard currency drought caused by sanctions and the suspension of International Monetary Fund programs.
In 1999 a new New Zealand government was elected who started a major reorganisation of the armed forces. One major element in this was the cancellation of the F-16 contract and the disbandment of its fighter force. The planes stayed in the boneyard for just a little longer.
In 2002, the US finally stopped trying to sell the aircraft and decided to assign them to the USAF and US Navy to fill the Aggressor role. After the demise of the (T)F-16N aggressor force, the US Navy lacked a high-performance aggressor aircraft. Because of the low airframe life of the embargoed Pakistani F-16s, these airframes were ideally suited for the demanding aggressor role. The 28 aircraft were thus evenly split between the USAF and the US Navy, and will take a vital role in DACT training of US forces.
After the attacks on 9/11 the Pakistani government became a major US ally in the war on terror. It was decided to redeliver those aircraft to Pakistan. Untill now, only half of them has been redelivered, with the remainder still to follow.
One of the Pakistan AF F-16s stored at Davis-Monthan AFB. This particular airframe was selected for closer inspection by the RNZAF while considering purchasing the PAF F-16s [RNZAF photo] Peace Drive
On March 25th, 2005, the US Government announced that it had agreed to Pakistan's request to sell new F-16s. Initially, Pakistan has requested an additional 24 new Block 50/52 F-16C/Ds (with option for as much as 55 aircraft). Not much details are known at this moment about a possible sale of the aircraft to Pakistan. The deal is expected to be concluded by September or October of 2005. As part of the package, it was also agreed that the current fleet of older A/B models would get the MLU update.
As a sign of good gesture, the US agreed to supply Pakistan with a number of F-16s who where build under the Peace Gate III/IV programs.
Finally, after long series of negotiations, on September 30th, 2006 the contract was signed between the Pakistani and US government for the acquisition of 18 new F-16C/D block 52 aircraft and an option for another 18 more. In the deal the re-delivery of the 26 remaining Peace Gate III/IV aircraft was also agreed and the upgrade of those aircraft - and the remaining F-16A/B fleet - to MLU standards.
This order was granted and given a new FMS name at Pakistan's request. Albeit it already had the Peace Gate program, the PAF decided to choose another name since Peace Gate had too much negative commotion since the embargo of the last batch of aircraft.
It is interesting that the US tried to sell them to Indonesia first but fell over possibly as it was also an Islamic nation. The failure to sell them elsewhere is also telling.. This article is old but only 18 new F16C/D aircraft were actually delivered as the PAF could not agree to terms for the 18 other options
The question is of course what would have happened if NZ had leased the aircraft bearing in mind the US requested Pakistan's assistance after 9/11. Would the RNZAF lease have been terminated?
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jul 13, 2017 11:05:29 GMT 12
According to both Janes and Wikipedia they did. The USAF aircraft went first followed by the USN which were reluctantly let go as they were being used by agressor units. They were followed by a further purchase by the PAF of another 18 new aircraft. The title of these aircraft was never in dispute as Pakistan had already paid for them. If the USAF had transferred 32 of their own aircraft there would never have been a problem.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jun 21, 2017 20:02:10 GMT 12
Providing the seller of Bismarck provides a CIF contract with the vessel in operating condition and a good supply of 15 inch shells why not?. Take off the back turrets and put in a flight deck and some Standard SAMs. Replace the 150 mm with Tomahawks and Seasparrow ESM. You would have a real kickass ship that only a nuke would stop.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jun 21, 2017 17:38:22 GMT 12
F16's owned by the PAF are not Orion replacements. The F16s have now all been delivered to their true owners along with another dozen as well. Key had nine years to replace the fighter wing- do you see one? Do not say it is not possible because have a look at what the Singapore AF did I would expect replacements for the Orions to be ordered since the P3's operate both SAR in the Pacific as well as NZ, and support Customs in coastal surveillance. Likewise the C130 replacements would go ahead because they would be seen by Greens/Labour as supporting the Pacific region in emergencies not to mention supporting NZ forces. There was no chance that the replacements would be ordered in June since I believe the plan was always for them to be announced sometime in the new year. I think Brownless said something about that. It is now unlikely that you will see anything this year anyway since there is likely to be a coalition whoever wins and partners will have to be "consulted" and then you have Xmas/New Year holidays. February at the earliest?
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jun 12, 2017 18:39:45 GMT 12
B757-200 requires 1460 M for landing at max weight according to Janes. If you left the 20.0 tonne of back seat drivers behind there would be even more margin left. If the 757 has Rolls Royce engines it is even less at 1411 M. Maybe Boeing picked the wrong aircraft to develop for MP as runway performance appears to be much better than the 737?
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jun 3, 2017 20:09:21 GMT 12
Did the RNZAF buy 8 or 9 airframes? I understood there was an extra kept for spares?
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jun 3, 2017 20:08:46 GMT 12
... and now the total cost of the NH.90 helicopters, spares, training etc please 🤔 Jun 3, 2017 5:28:40 GMT 12 dutchkiwi said: So... the 15 UH-60M to Sweden was not that bad. Fifteen Blackhawks would be better then eight NH.90. But... it's my own humble opinion 🤗 Purchase price of aircraft and initial spares packages, tech support etc, NZ$480M / 8 frames = $60M At February 2005 the NZ Dollar was buying 0.6 Euros. By 2010 it was typically buying 0.5 Euros, some times as little as 0.4. That's a sizeable currency shift during the period the capital outlay was most likely occurring. Did the RNZAF buy 8 or 9 airframes? I understood there was an extra kept for spares?
Source
Total project costs includes elements like infrastructure upgrades, flight time support introduction in to serve etc. Some of those are big chunks of money, like the very large 3 Squadron hangar with multiple fire cells and high seismic rating. A mix of 15 medium choppers was considered part of the project. They would have required 8 LUHs to generate sufficient crews. That option was assessed as
* Does not meet essential affordability or supportability requirements.
* Capital and whole of life costs high
* No allowance made for attrition
* Personnel requirements exceed current establishment and would be difficult to generate.
15 Blackhawks were required to meet the operational payload requirements, therefore option didn't work. SaveSave
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on May 24, 2017 17:54:34 GMT 12
Supreme Court Hearing set for Aug 24-25
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on May 23, 2017 21:19:45 GMT 12
Back in the Sixties and Seventies I was able to visit a number of ships Carriers USS America and Intrepid and HMS Eagle Cruisers USS Canberra (CG) and St Paul (CA) Destroyers well dozens The best of the lot was INS Delhi although she was better known when she was HMS (and later HMNZS) Achilles Very haunting that ship
|
|