|
Post by hamfists on Jan 29, 2014 21:47:27 GMT 12
Get rid of the b200!!?? What? They're brand new..they only got them last year..why would they get rid of them already!?
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Jan 29, 2014 21:58:27 GMT 12
Contract expires in 2018.
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on Jan 29, 2014 21:58:56 GMT 12
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 As a former QFI on the PC9 (and later the Hawk) who taught students who were streamed afterwards to their roles, allow me to say "bollocks" to your post above. While obviously not being privy to the cost/benefit analysis of the purchase, I am glad that the RNZAF has provided the business case to gain enhanced capability over the "lowest cost always" mentality that pervades NZ defence purchases. It is apparent to me that the RNZAF has correctly determined that it more important to have all their pilots able to operate effectively in a single-pilot role in a higher performance aircraft, rather than introduce and re-enforce the "I don't know, I'm just the co-pilot" mentality during their training. CRM and multi- crew principles can be learned/taught later when in their [inevitable] 2 crew aircraft, but it is very difficult to build good piloting skills and thought processes later - particularly if that development is required to emerge rapidly during a command upgrade or FIC. There is no doubt in my mind that having all pilots graduate from a common advanced trainer produces a higher standard that carries throughout all the Airforce types. This may cost a premium, but the benefit is measurable and required.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2014 22:09:23 GMT 12
I believe it was mentioned early in this thread that the B-200's lease runs out in 2018. Are the RNZAF still looking for a smaller MPA? Cause if so then wouldn't that twin engine MPA take on the role of twin engine training? I highly doubt the RNZAF will not replace the twin engine trainer type, it's very illogical to go from a small single turboprop to a herc, orion or 757.. However I'm not sure this is the appropriate thread to discuss the King air's on? Sorry for the thread topic deviation.
|
|
|
Post by machpants on Jan 29, 2014 22:15:22 GMT 12
Fair enough and you are correct. And, as I said in the second post, the benefits of a more advanced aircraft may outweigh the extra cost.
My real concern was that there would be no follow on trainer (king air), as was stated in the items/ releases that I have read. You certainly can push students further in a Tucano/ Texan/ PC 9 than you can in a CT4, and being the same type of a/c the US use it may well not even be more expensive!
As to I don't know I'm just the co, we'll that is a failure of training and CRM, not a/c type. In my heli two pilot experience the was no split between co and captains, every one qualified from training to be a captain, and the most senior aircrew ( incl back seat types) took the role on the flight when crew was assigned. Similar to how you are not combat ready in the FJ world until you a a qualified pairs lead. But the ME worlds way of training people to that level is for a different thread.
In your thoughts, barnsey, would you be happy with just the Texan? Or more specifically could we afford/ have the sources to do so much more multi crew training time on front line types? Herc/ Orion/ etc?
|
|
|
Post by exkiwiforces on Jan 29, 2014 23:30:29 GMT 12
I believe it was mentioned early in this thread that the B-200's lease runs out in 2018. Are the RNZAF still looking for a smaller MPA? Cause if so then wouldn't that twin engine MPA take on the role of twin engine training? I highly doubt the RNZAF will not replace the twin engine trainer type, it's very illogical to go from a small single turboprop to a herc, orion or 757.. However I'm not sure this is the appropriate thread to discuss the King air's on? Sorry for the thread topic deviation. I'm Starting to think there is a wee bit more to this story and the part 2 of this part 3 series will or may happen after election if national gets back in. If it's a twin engine MPA to do multi engine training and lead in training for the Scope dopes could we see the reformation of No2 SQN (GR) or, A twin engine Battlefield airlifter (C-295 or C27J) to do multi engine training could we see the reformation of No 1 SQN perhaps or 42 SQN with a new aircraft? It doesn't look right or feel right to me or is my SMAP starting to kick in? Anyone up for a wee bet?
|
|
|
Post by Mustang51 on Jan 30, 2014 7:18:14 GMT 12
Does C27J make sense for NZ ops? Is there a demonstrated need? Not questioning merely asking an uninformed question. RAAF needed Caribou replacement and despite the US politics of the type I guess it makes sense here.
|
|
|
Post by aeromuzz on Jan 30, 2014 8:15:04 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by vs on Jan 30, 2014 9:18:29 GMT 12
All the USAF's new build C27's are going straight into storage….could be some airframes going cheap!
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Jan 30, 2014 10:03:25 GMT 12
At least some of them have gone elsewhere - Coast Guard was it?
Sent via Proboards Android App
|
|
|
Post by flyinkiwi on Jan 30, 2014 10:12:20 GMT 12
Another good thing (read: cost saving) to come out of this purchase is the logistics consolidation to a single fuel for the fleet, i.e. no more AvGas, although having the Checkers pull up outside the Aero Club to fill up was always a bit of a thrill.
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Jan 30, 2014 13:41:44 GMT 12
Geez, the way you're all getting so excited about the announcement of the purchase of eleven T-6Cs, anyone would think that they'd just announced that the RNZAF was getting an air combat capability back! They're just 'trainers' - they're not that special! Seriously, this is a great piece of news for the RNZAF, and I am sure they will get many years of service from these aircraft. It's just sad that this news now means that nearly 40 years of faithful service by two variants of the CT-4 'plastic rat' is about to come to an end for the RNZAF.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Jan 30, 2014 14:28:30 GMT 12
I believe it was mentioned early in this thread that the B-200's lease runs out in 2018. Are the RNZAF still looking for a smaller MPA? Cause if so then wouldn't that twin engine MPA take on the role of twin engine training? I highly doubt the RNZAF will not replace the twin engine trainer type, it's very illogical to go from a small single turboprop to a herc, orion or 757.. However I'm not sure this is the appropriate thread to discuss the King air's on? Sorry for the thread topic deviation. I'm Starting to think there is a wee bit more to this story and the part 2 of this part 3 series will or may happen after election if national gets back in. If it's a twin engine MPA to do multi engine training and lead in training for the Scope dopes could we see the reformation of No2 SQN (GR) or, A twin engine Battlefield airlifter (C-295 or C27J) to do multi engine training could we see the reformation of No 1 SQN perhaps or 42 SQN with a new aircraft? It doesn't look right or feel right to me or is my SMAP starting to kick in? Anyone up for a wee bet? I'm with you on this. There is more to come in this story... If National get back in I'd put money on seeing C-27Js (some of the unwanted ex US Army ones) and 1 Sqn reformed, around 2018 ;+)
|
|
|
Post by TS on Jan 30, 2014 14:47:07 GMT 12
We better all hope National get back in for this to happen. If they don't then the Greens and Labour will scrap it all. Then the RNZAF will be back to square one or worse, "pedal car aircraft for kids to fly."
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Jan 30, 2014 15:38:15 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Jan 30, 2014 16:24:46 GMT 12
All the USAF's new build C27's are going straight into storage….could be some airframes going cheap! Not cheap when you have to deal with the end user process and the inevitable MAP costs and controls.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jan 30, 2014 17:11:04 GMT 12
pretty sure we are going off thread topic here guys
|
|
roly
Leading Aircraftman
Posts: 9
|
Post by roly on Jan 30, 2014 17:35:24 GMT 12
Did you hear the question Mr Goff asked Dr Coleman this afternoon? It was a classic - "how many jobs in the production will be lost from Pacific Aerospace because of the decision of the defence force to purchase their training aircraft offshore (or something like that) - or didn't he even bother to ask?" What - I would suggest that the Minister should have given the obvious answer; that he didn't think he needed to ask the question because the answer is clearly none! If a new CT-4 hasn't been sold in over tn years what have all their production people been doing since then. Sitting on their jacksies - or probably more truthfully building their other products - so the decision to buy offshore means there is zero impact on PACL's production force. Either that or the company has money to burn to pay people to sit around waiting for a sale a decade or more later! Tarting up the CT-4 is putting lipstick on a pig. Scurvy breaks out on transit flights because its so slow and take forever to get anywhere. It hasn't got the performance or systems (e.g oxygen!) to get above the weather if required; it cant meet modern Airways requirements like PBN. Its an old design that has had its day - modern requirements have passed it by. Its kinda like riding a moped - sure its fun, but you don't want anyone to see you doing it The ADF have a pilot training tender out at the moment - have PACL bid for that? If not why not - they too are using the CT4 s the arguments they try to make for the NZDF to use their product surely apply to the ADF as well do they not - or is that the real world over there - not being propped up by the NZ taxpayer. I sick of this sour grapes 'run to daddy' approach PACL seem to be taking on this. Man up and move on I say.
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Jan 30, 2014 17:58:50 GMT 12
Looking at the choice of the T-6C , I'd say the CT-4 would not have met many of the requirements. As has been stated before, this is for a newer style of pilot training ,so not a 'like for like' capability upgrade.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jan 30, 2014 18:32:38 GMT 12
totally different aircraft. bring on the new recruiting tv ad's
|
|