|
|
Post by Calum on Apr 21, 2012 19:24:42 GMT 12
The Mu 90 is another ADF project that didn't go well. It was supposed to go on the P-3, Seahawk and Seasprite. But the integration ran into problems on the P3 and Seahawks so it was canned.
|
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Apr 22, 2012 10:18:10 GMT 12
The Mu 90 is another ADF project that didn't go well. It was supposed to go on the P-3, Seahawk and Seasprite. But the integration ran into problems on the P3 and Seahawks so it was canned. IIRC it has been integrated with the ANZAC and Adelaide frigates though. I suspect with both the extant Seahawks and the P3s having limited service life left, it wouldn't make sense spending a lot of money integrating the MU90; better to simply leverage off the USNs efforts with the Mk 54. www.defencetalk.com/australia-to-acquire-mk-54-lightweight-torpedoes-29269/ It will be interesting to see if the ADF standardises on the Mk 54 for the P-3 and then P8. |
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Apr 22, 2012 10:46:07 GMT 12
so when is the news to be released that we are buying these Sprites.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 22, 2012 11:15:48 GMT 12
And what happened to the news that they were buying another Hercules? All these rumours are just that till it happens...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 22, 2012 16:25:49 GMT 12
As with all pending and in-negotiation contracts, discussing them on a public forum as rumour or "fact" could be harmful to both buyer and seller. We have to be careful here not to assume anything is fact till any official announcement is made.
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Apr 22, 2012 21:01:34 GMT 12
And what happened to the news that they were buying another Hercules? All these rumours are just that till it happens... who said we are buying another Hercules  |
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Apr 22, 2012 21:57:20 GMT 12
The Mu 90 is another ADF project that didn't go well. It was supposed to go on the P-3, Seahawk and Seasprite. But the integration ran into problems on the P3 and Seahawks so it was canned.  There's the Stingray Torpedo Mod 1 has been integrated on the Thai Navys P3T Orion's . Few modifications to ANZACs should be able to integrate. It would also be alot safer removing the risk of the dangerous monopropellant OTTO fuel spillages (with the current MK46 )as its electric powered running off saltwater activated batteries. www.baesystems.com/cs/groups/public/documents/document/mdaw/mdm4/~edisp/baes_021521.pdfBelow is the link to NZ MOD projects necessary to prevent failure of policy the NZDF torpedo replacement is below the P3K Orion air to surface weapons project. www.defence.govt.nz/reports-publications/ltdp-2008/prj-necessary.html |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 22, 2012 22:06:12 GMT 12
And what happened to the news that they were buying another Hercules? All these rumours are just that till it happens... who said we are buying another Hercules There was a thread about two years back when news was trickling out about No. 40 Squadron struggling with training and ops, with a rumour saying they were just about to purchase an old second hand C-130E for training. It never happened to my knowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Apr 22, 2012 22:16:36 GMT 12
pretty sure w ewould have known by now if they had bough one.
Yuck, an old ex aussie E model.
|
|
|
|
Post by raymond on Apr 22, 2012 22:33:24 GMT 12
Arn't our first couple of C130's E models converted to H on the production line?
|
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Apr 23, 2012 9:20:55 GMT 12
The Mu 90 is another ADF project that didn't go well. It was supposed to go on the P-3, Seahawk and Seasprite. But the integration ran into problems on the P3 and Seahawks so it was canned. IIRC it has been integrated with the ANZAC and Adelaide frigates though. I suspect with both the extant Seahawks and the P3s having limited service life left, it wouldn't make sense spending a lot of money integrating the MU90; better to simply leverage off the USNs efforts with the Mk 54. www.defencetalk.com/australia-to-acquire-mk-54-lightweight-torpedoes-29269/ It will be interesting to see if the ADF standardises on the Mk 54 for the P-3 and then P8. It wasn't remaining service life that killed it IIRC there were other issues at play. Probably intergration with the exsiting systems. It was canned long before the start of the Seahawk replacement project. |
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Apr 23, 2012 15:02:02 GMT 12
Arn't our first couple of C130's E models converted to H on the production line? Yes, the first 3 were basically E airframes with H engines. |
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Apr 23, 2012 15:20:41 GMT 12
As with all pending and in-negotiation contracts, discussing them on a public forum as rumour or "fact" could be harmful to both buyer and seller. We have to be careful here not to assume anything is fact till any official announcement is made. It used to astound me, but now it simply amuses me, and I mean the amount of rumour and outright rubbish talked about by people who have never been a part, at any level, of the initiation to procurement of new equipment, particularly aircraft. I wonder if the RNZAF is aware that it may /could have/possibly/I'm certain because- I -heard- it- in- the -bar /might have acquired another ancient Herc [ancient because it wouldn't be compatible with the existing fleet],and I'd love to be a fly on the wall when they learn they're buying ex-Aussie Seasprites. Especially when there is no provision whatsoever in any defence planning to do so. It will be enough to drive them all back to the bar! |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 23, 2012 15:25:20 GMT 12
I have a feeling the Herc was to be a ground trainer, for training Loadmasters how to use the pellet system etc, without tying up the flying fleet. That was one thing I heard mooted anyway. Who knows for sure.
Maybe all the people promoting that one were civilianised or made redundant...
|
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Apr 23, 2012 15:32:10 GMT 12
Of all the theories and rumour expounded here, not one iota of a suggestion that any of might have any weight is in the 2010 Defence White paper, nor the subsequent 2011 Annual Report.
Then of course they might not have got out of the pub before it was released.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 23, 2012 18:34:12 GMT 12
So you don't think we are seriously looking at the I models?
|
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Apr 23, 2012 19:57:54 GMT 12
May I draw your attention to the 2010 White Paper:
5.18 Significant capabilities proposed for the next five years include a replacement pilot
training capability; the introduction of short-range maritime patrol aircraft; an ANZAC
frigate self-defence upgrade; HMNZS Endeavour replacement; Seasprite upgrade or
replacement; a rolling renewal of the land transport fleet; a land command and control
system; and a replacement littoral warfare support ship.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Apr 23, 2012 21:44:34 GMT 12
Now show me where the funding is mentioned! Proposed is notional, not factual: Quote
"Given the need for rigorous fiscal management, the capability programme proposed for the next five years and thereafter will need to be carefully prioritised and phased".
Which means, there is no funding allocated!
|
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Apr 24, 2012 8:09:00 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Apr 25, 2012 18:37:06 GMT 12
Now show me where the funding is mentioned! Proposed is notional, not factual: Quote "Given the need for rigorous fiscal management, the capability programme proposed for the next five years and thereafter will need to be carefully prioritised and phased". Which means, there is no funding allocated! Meat raffles on Friday nights in the bars on every base |
|
