|
Post by exkiwiforces on Jan 28, 2014 20:11:56 GMT 12
Because the RAAF are looking at replacing their PC-9's in the near term
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jan 28, 2014 20:15:07 GMT 12
Because the RAAF are looking at replacing their PC-9's in the near term thank you
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Jan 28, 2014 20:38:01 GMT 12
Because the RAAF are looking at replacing their PC-9's in the near term A valid point, but the NZDF and ADF have chosen different options to meet their respective needs more often than not: C-130J v C-130H upgrade, P-3 upgrades - AP-3C v P-3K(2), MH-60R v SH-2G(I), ANZAC frigate upgrades. NH-90 probably being the exception to this.
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Jan 28, 2014 20:38:57 GMT 12
"The aircraft also will be flown by the RNZAF’s formation aerobatic display team made up of senior instructor pilots" So the Red Checkers have a new mount too! That should be awesome to see If that's the case, given the Checkers are not around this season, we may have already seen the last CT-4 Checkers display, after 30+ years with the type. I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a Checkers team for 2014-2015 either; with the introduction of a new type there might be other priorities .
|
|
|
Post by exkiwiforces on Jan 28, 2014 20:53:12 GMT 12
Because the RAAF are looking at replacing their PC-9's in the near term A valid point, but the NZDF and ADF have chosen different options to meet their respective needs more often than not: C-130J v C-130H upgrade, P-3 upgrades - AP-3C v P-3K(2), MH-60R v SH-2G(I), ANZAC frigate upgrades. NH-90 probably being the exception to this. The RAN had selected the SH-2 before Rudd chopped it. The last National Government in 97 or 98 was too lazy to place a firm order for 8 C-130J's on the back of the Australia order instead went for the lazy option and made it an option for 8 C-130J’s. As we all if National had some balls back then RNZAF would 8J’s and wold be half operational cost now not the bloody balls up we have now with 5 elderly H models.
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Jan 28, 2014 21:01:27 GMT 12
The last National Government in 97 or 98 was too lazy to place a firm order for 8 C-130J's on the back of the Australia order instead went for the lazy option and made it an option for 8 C-130J’s. As we all if National had some balls back then RNZAF would 8J’s and wold be half operational cost now not the bloody balls up we have now with 5 elderly H models. That's clear in hindsight, but with the not insignificant teething troubles the J was experiencing at the time it was nowhere near as clear then.
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Jan 28, 2014 21:31:42 GMT 12
Great news for the RNZAF and NZDF not a full return to ACF but it's a start. Good to see 14 SQN colours will be dusted off and paraded again . I wonder if they will bring back the Black Falcons display team since it's 14SQN and not CFS .
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jan 28, 2014 22:05:22 GMT 12
ok, with not going back all the posts, but, but has it been confirmed that they will be painted black.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jan 28, 2014 22:30:08 GMT 12
Um, has all that information been cleared for public release, Sqwark2k?
|
|
|
Post by sqwark2k on Jan 28, 2014 22:47:55 GMT 12
Yes they will be painted black. Yellow is out.
It's not secret info, it just hasn't been put out there yet. I removed 1 paragraph as a precaution, but the rest wasn't attached with any non-disclosure clauses.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jan 28, 2014 23:05:04 GMT 12
Just checking because some of that information was told to me last week with provisos. I don't want anyone getting into trouble.
|
|
|
Post by Mustang51 on Jan 29, 2014 7:56:36 GMT 12
Thinking that the RAAF will go for the PC21. Four underwing and one fuselage hardpoint makes it quite versatile and 130 Sqn Singapore Air Force operating at Pearce, WA makes it easy to see just how the device really operates in a training environment without the factory spin doctors getting too involved
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jan 29, 2014 8:39:09 GMT 12
I take it, by the fact that post has mysteriously disappeared now, it wasn't actually cleared for release after all?
|
|
|
Post by tbf25o4 on Jan 29, 2014 13:44:18 GMT 12
greetings all,
As one of those lucky enough to get a flight and to try my hand at flying the T-6c during its tour of new Zealand, I am most pleased with the decision to purchase this particular trainer. (See my report in Aviation News May 2012). The choice of the Texan II will mean that the RNZAF; on the retirement of the mighty Iroquois will be an all "glass" fleet. The Texan II is a truly multi-role primary/advanced trainer that will allow training of navigators in basic navigation as well as taking ab-initio pilots through to conversion onto operational aircraft, with conversion to multi-engine machines. The full details of the purchase need to be spelled out as at the time of my flight the best option being offered was a "lease-to-buy" which brought the hourly operating cost in the initial years to a very respective rate. If the choice of "NZ14xx" serial numbers are to be worn then we be re-using wartime DH82A serials. the NZ1xxx series is the correct range as those are reserved for primary pilot trainers. A better choice may have been NZ1602 - onwards as those are unallocated (NZ1601 was a DH82A)
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Jan 29, 2014 17:18:48 GMT 12
What about serial NZ1985? That was on the earlier yellow model.
|
|
|
Post by machpants on Jan 29, 2014 19:36:47 GMT 12
greetings all, As one of those lucky enough to get a flight and to try my hand at flying the T-6c during its tour of new Zealand, I am most pleased with the decision to purchase this particular trainer. (See my report in Aviation News May 2012). The choice of the Texan II will mean that the RNZAF; on the retirement of the mighty Iroquois will be an all "glass" fleet. The Texan II is a truly multi-role primary/advanced trainer that will allow training of navigators in basic navigation as well as taking ab-initio pilots through to conversion onto operational aircraft, with conversion to multi-engine machines. The full details of the purchase need to be spelled out as at the time of my flight the best option being offered was a "lease-to-buy" which brought the hourly operating cost in the initial years to a very respective rate. If the choice of "NZ14xx" serial numbers are to be worn then we be re-using wartime DH82A serials. the NZ1xxx series is the correct range as those are reserved for primary pilot trainers. A better choice may have been NZ1602 - onwards as those are unallocated (NZ1601 was a DH82A) I am sure it is fun to fly but why on earth has a multi crew air force purchased a trainer aimed at single/dual pilot operations? I have been through training for both environments - multi crew RN Sea King, small time on Hercs, & dual crew RAF Tornado F3. One of the most important parts of any military aircrew training (Harriers, F16, and other single seat jets aside) is crew co-op/ CRM. The CRM requirements and practices for a tandem cockpit are totally different than what is required for a multi-crew environment. I am flabbergasted that the RNZAF has purchased a fast jet lead in trainer when they have NO fast jets! The only two reason I can see is that either the higher echelons of the RNZAF are ex-Skyhawk and stuck back in those days (which aren't coming again unless we win some sort of oil/resource lottery) or maybe it is a back door to get some offensive air for anti-piracy/border patrol/Homeland Security type ops. Outside CRM the performance profile of the Texan is not like any front line type in any way. The previous aircraft types where ideal for the training required, not the specific models any more. The CT4 for basic and low level, handling, aeros, formation etc then as required moving on the a ME a/c to increase CRM and ME type skills, obviously the rotary guys already have their own lead in trainer. Yes they needed replacement, a more powerful side-by-side trainer fitted glass cockpit in conjunction with a ME a/c fitted with radar etc for Nav/ACM training - that is common sense. The financial side of it I don't know enough to comment, but with crew moving from a fast jet type a/c into something completely different and having to learn their core crew roles on the front line a/c, there must be many ways to do it cheaper. I feel like complaining to my MP... ... in the hope they take me for a blast when they arrive just to prove me wrong
|
|
roly
Leading Aircraftman
Posts: 9
|
Post by roly on Jan 29, 2014 20:34:44 GMT 12
Wow - nice anglo centric way of looking at NZ pilot trg requirements there mate - thanks for deigning to provide us with your superior knowledge! What a load of rubbish. You seem to have conveiently forgotten your own training (didn't do any time in a Jet Provost or Tucano during your UK traning?) and the simple fact that the world body of evidence seems to be at odds with your thinking. The majority of air forces around the world actually make use of single engine military turboprop trainers for pilot training - RAF has (had?) Tucano - are you saying only fast jet guys flew them? RAAF pilots fly PC-9, Singaporeans PC-21, USAF/USN T-6A/T-6B respectively, South Africans fly the PC-7 MkII, even the Irish Air Corps fly the PC-9M! The model you are suggesting is the model currently used - start on the (VERY) basic CT-4 and move to the B200 - well guysee what - it hasnt worked! Since the demise of the ACF the RNZAF has been forced to use the CT-4/B200 combo - they just dont provide the 'stretch' required for trainees. The end result is that pilots who graduate wingshave been failing captaincy upgrades and flying instructors courses. Arguably thes guys may have been weeded out on wings course if they had had a platform to stretch them.
How about they learn to fly first eh - then they can get their CRM trg on the B200 when they do their multi engine conversion course. The B200s will still be around - just not being used for the advanced phase of wings course.
|
|
|
Post by machpants on Jan 29, 2014 21:14:14 GMT 12
No ME and rotary guys don't go Tucano, it is too expensive and they don't need it. The money is better spent on type relevant models such as the Helos at DHFS or King Air for the ME guys. Yup if you go rotary the Lynx is the fastest thing you'll get to fly (unless they are chopped fast jet).
However no where in any of the stuff coming from the Gov't do I see a single thing saying the King Airs will be retained. So maybe there is insider knowledge that the contract will be renewed/replaced. However everything that has been released that I have seen says the Texan is a replacement with both the CT4 and B200; with the CT4 out of service life and the King Air contract ending at the same time.
If that is incorrect, well, that is a different (as in totally different) situation. And doing just basic on the Texan with the A109 or the King Air for advanced makes sense, prefect sense. To me a smaller CT4/Grob/Chipmunk ;)type of a/c should be cheaper but if the numbers and/or capabilities don't add up, well that is fine.
I did not anywhere suggest using the same model CT4, I suggested the same type of aircraft a cheap side by side trainer, there are a lot out there. I just suggested a similar model to the current one: 2 a/c, the first basic and the second more advanced. If the King Airs are staying then it is only a small change.
But whatever if the Texan is a replacement for just the CT4 I take my rant back, but if it is to be the only fixed wing training a/c I stand by my comment that it is a poor air frame decision.
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Jan 29, 2014 21:29:40 GMT 12
I doubt the RNZAF will ever give up the light turbo-prop twin. There cannot have been too many points in history when they were without them or the piston equivalent. The country is such that there is always a requirement for a light comms aircraft and of course a suitable multi engine trainer. In my day it was the Devon but of course there was the F-27 and C-421. The King Air, or similar, is always going to find a niche in the fleet. The F-27 were used for just about everything imaginable, I am sure the RNZAF had a good run for their money with them. They had a sim back in 1980, not a bad deal at all.
I believe the reporting is probably trying to be too correct, too pc if you may. The King Air 200 replacement has not been mentioned yet, it would not be the most demanding of fleet roll-overs though, regardless. A little reading between the lines may be required, especially with some of the Press Releases.
|
|
|
Post by machpants on Jan 29, 2014 21:33:08 GMT 12
Keeping/like for like replacing the king airs makes sense. Replacing both, as the releases have said, does not. Hopefully they will put some rear crew training capability (even synthetic) into the King Air replacement for back seat types. And the helo guys will find Map reading at 120 knots a doddle after doing it at 300 in the Texan!
|
|