|
|
Post by phil82 on Nov 16, 2009 1:51:56 GMT 12
Having had this discussion brought to my attention, I'd like to add a reminder that this is an operation currently in progress so there should be no posting of information or even any speculation about the deployment date and route etc. please. The Armed Forces would certainly not appreciate operational information of a current op being publicised or speculated upon. As mentioned, this is just a friendly reminder, not a telling off to anyone. Nothing yet has been breached, but we'd hate to see loose lips sinking ships. . There has been no "operational information" posted because no one here knows any! What has been reiterated in posts is already in the public domain, and released by Defence! |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 16, 2009 15:59:55 GMT 12
Yes I know that Colin, no-one did anything wrong, yet - but I was asked to give a reminder, that's all, and I thought it was pertinent to do so. It has happened in the past that I have had to remove details of a current operation that should not have been made public, because people simply forget that as well as us all being a friendly family of enthusiasts, there are others out there lurking and walls have ears and eyes and our soldiers may be put into compromising positions.
|
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Nov 16, 2009 20:51:29 GMT 12
Yeah defence can be a bit weird, a few years back we were deployed to middle eastern location for a few months, the host nation was a bit sensitive about us being there and we were also told to only tell immediate family of our actual location and all this hush hush stuff. Then photos were released by NZDF of myself watching a Seasprite in and another guy on the flight deck complete with ranks and names provided!!!!! DOH!!
|
|
|
|
Post by fletcherfu24 on Nov 16, 2009 20:56:23 GMT 12
..or when the SAS initially went to Afganistan after 911 and the Government was denying we were sending them.......A C130 in desert camouflage was doing circuits at Tauranga all day.
|
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Nov 17, 2009 6:39:14 GMT 12
$700k to charter a 747 is probably not unreasonable. I remember Rob Fyfe saying a while back a 747 burnt about $1M in fuel flying to the UK and back (he was discussing why they were retiring their 747s and going for smaller, more fuel efficient aircraft on their long haul routes). If the charter has to fly out empty then we will have to pay for that as well as the flight in.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Nov 17, 2009 8:07:36 GMT 12
$700k to charter a 747 is probably not unreasonable. I remember Rob Fyfe saying a while back a 747 burnt about $1M in fuel flying to the UK and back (he was discussing why they were retiring their 747s and going for smaller, more fuel efficient aircraft on their long haul routes). If the charter has to fly out empty then we will have to pay for that as well as the flight in. The charter is a cheap, [relatively], practical, means of achieving the aim, and has both immediacy and the best result of getting three vehicles in theatre in one go, and complete! A C130 can carry a partially dismantled vehicle, but not that far as normal range is compromised. Getting one vehicle there would take a number of legs. To get all three there would take plus three Hercs, and the combined cost of all of that would well exceed the cost of the charter, assuming three Hercs are available, which is highly unlikely. So to answer the question "who in Defence decided that?": I would say some very smart, practical thinkers made the decision.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 17, 2009 9:10:09 GMT 12
Thanks for that Don and Colin, I had no idea that flying a Boeing 747 was that expensive.
|
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Nov 17, 2009 16:49:25 GMT 12
..or when the SAS initially went to Afganistan after 911 and the Government was denying we were sending them.......A C130 in desert camouflage was doing circuits at Tauranga all day. Ah the deception worked ;D The plane had nothing to do with them. While you were looking up they pushed their canoes into the water and paddled off towards Afghanistan  |
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Nov 17, 2009 17:30:00 GMT 12
A plane like a Boeing 747 uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel (about 4 liters) every second. Over the course of a 10-hour flight, it might burn 36,000 gallons (150,000 liters). According to Boeing's Web site, the 747 burns approximately 5 gallons of fuel per mile (12 liters per kilometer).
This sounds like a tremendously poor miles-per-gallon rating! But consider that a 747 can carry as many as 568 people. Let's call it 500 people to take into account the fact that not all seats on most flights are occupied. A 747 is transporting 500 people 1 mile using 5 gallons of fuel. That means the plane is burning 0.01 gallons per person per mile. In other words, the plane is getting 100 miles per gallon per person! The typical car gets about 25 miles per gallon, so the 747 is much better than a car carrying one person, and compares favorably even if there are four people in the car. Not bad when you consider that the 747 is flying at 550 miles per hour (900 km/h)!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 17, 2009 18:51:03 GMT 12
Thanks Beagle, that's really informative and interesting.
Thus 747's are much more environmentally friendly than cars carring the same amount of people the same distance too. So why are the greenies picking on airlines?
|
|
|
|
Post by Parrotfish on Nov 18, 2009 0:06:51 GMT 12
If absolutely ANYONE here now mentions f@%#ing food miles.... I'm going to hunt them down and force them to listen to the parliamentary speeches of Keith Locke!! If your lucky I'll just shoot you!! Sorry, the food miles pedants and debate are pet hates of mine |
|
|
|
Post by motoxjase on Nov 21, 2009 9:14:08 GMT 12
About time these over-priced battle Limos are deployed overseas!!
Next Labour will be saying that they were justified in buying the LAVs has they were deployed to a combat zone unlike the Skyhawks
|
|
|
|
Post by fletcherfu24 on Nov 21, 2009 18:55:00 GMT 12
Sell them to the same scrap dealer that buys the Skyhawks.
|
|
|
|
Post by nige on Nov 21, 2009 21:31:49 GMT 12
About time these over-priced battle Limos are deployed overseas!! Next Labour will be saying that they were justified in buying the LAVs has they were deployed to a combat zone unlike the Skyhawks Except they can't say that cos they don't support the SAS going back! Oh dear, a perfect (and probably the only) opportunity squandered .... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by briandooley on Nov 24, 2009 19:02:36 GMT 12
I don't have a friend any longer in the RNZAF although years ago I was actually in the service. Some of my old friends are probably dead by this time. However I manage to keep in touch so I can confidently say that the NZLAV can fit into a C-130 and that photos have been published showing just that. It is in fact exactly the same width as the M113 apc which was flown by C-130 on its way to East Timor via Darwin. It does not need to be strippd down since the suspension rather cleverly bends gracefully at the knees. It has been unfairly compared to the M113 but the M113 doesn't have a turret mounting a powerful chain gun - if it did it would be the same height as the NZLAV. As to whether it can do the job, it has been employed in Afghanistan by the Canadian army for several years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 24, 2009 20:02:23 GMT 12
Welcome to the forum Brian. What did you do in the RNZAF?
|
|
|
|
Post by briandooley on Nov 24, 2009 20:44:31 GMT 12
In those days we were called comms fitters (air).
|
|
|
|
Post by briandooley on Nov 25, 2009 11:15:32 GMT 12
Which bits have to come off?
|
|
|
|
Post by briandooley on Nov 25, 2009 14:42:14 GMT 12
Stricly speaking the C-130 is a tactictical air lifter ie it is intended for relatively short hops within a theatre. NZ to Afghanistan is far too far to be considered a tactical move.
|
|
|
|
Post by briandooley on Nov 25, 2009 14:52:54 GMT 12
If, as somebody has written here, only the aerial whips and the pintle mounted machine gun need to be dismounted, then that is exactly what would normally expect for transportation. They would come down even if aboard HMNZS Canterbury.
|
|
