|
|
Post by Chris F on Aug 29, 2010 16:20:15 GMT 12
Could anyone tell me if the RNZAF are keeping as part of the historic flight any Bell 47 Sioux?
Also I have heard from several very good sources that both the current and former Government have been in talks with an Australian firm to provide offshore fisheries patrol work...is this true?
I also understand from the same source that certain Government Departments have been unhappy with the Orions limited over the zone patrols of the sub antartic area with fisheries patrol.
Looking to the future are we not better to look at UAV's for this work....Boeing have just released a hydrogen powered Phantom Eye UAV capable of been airbourne for 4 days and reaching a height of 65000ft and its only by product of combustion is water.
Makes sense does it not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris F on Aug 29, 2010 17:13:53 GMT 12
After reading all the comments about wanting some form of attack aircraft has everyone forgotton about our SH-2G Seasprites...they are armed and capable....yes.
Also I have done alot of research this avro and WOW the NH-90 and A109 they are impressive machine...very impressive...but there looks to be a gap between the CT4 and these high tech aircraft.
Would or is it been considered replacing the CT4 with a more 21st century aircraft like the Raytheon T-6A/PC-21.
Makes a whole lot of sense to me to bridge this gap with a more capable trainer.
Love some comments on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwiscanfly on Aug 29, 2010 17:55:54 GMT 12
The CT-4E as I understand it is only a basic trainer filling a role similar to that of the Grobs in the RAF. The advanced training is then undertaken in the B200, the B200 would be the ones most likely to be replaced with a new advanced trainer (have a look on the thread that talks about the new chief of defense there is something on new trainers in there) I have heard of no shortfalls of the CT-4E so i can see no reason why they would be replaced even if they are a bit old. But I am just an observer so don't take what I say as accurate, just an educated comment based on what I have seen.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwiscanfly on Aug 29, 2010 18:27:18 GMT 12
Opp's I spoke too soon there is now a new date for release of the white paper according to the ministry of Defense website as October 2010. This is either a major cock up, or they are brewing something good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris F on Aug 29, 2010 18:33:26 GMT 12
Thank you...any idea on the sioux syaing on as part of the historic flight?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 29, 2010 18:37:54 GMT 12
Opp's I spoke too soon there is now a new date for release of the white paper according to the ministry of Defense website as October 2010. This is either a major cock up, or they are brewing something good. They have been reading sirbean's comments and had a change of heart on their intended F-18 purchase. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 29, 2010 18:42:22 GMT 12
The CT-4E as I understand it is only a basic trainer filling a role similar to that of the Grobs in the RAF. The advanced training is then undertaken in the B200, the B200 would be the ones most likely to be replaced with a new advanced trainer (have a look on the thread that talks about the new chief of defense there is something on new trainers in there) I have heard of no shortfalls of the CT-4E so i can see no reason why they would be replaced even if they are a bit old. But I am just an observer so don't take what I say as accurate, just an educated comment based on what I have seen. I think Raptor was asking if it was time to look at a better option than the CT/4E given that the new helicopters coming online are a lot more sophisticated technically than what we have now. There was some talk a while back that the RNZAf desired purchasing its own trainers rather than just leasing them and relying upon contracted maintainers as they do now. This seems to be happeneing at last with the No. 42 Squadron aircrfat but I don't know if they will look at purchasing or replacing the Airtrainers. They are only around 15 years old so are not even into mid-life for such aircraft, and I'm sure they get a lot less use than their predecessors did. |
|
|
|
Post by kiwiscanfly on Aug 29, 2010 18:42:32 GMT 12
Opp's I spoke too soon there is now a new date for release of the white paper according to the ministry of Defense website as October 2010. This is either a major cock up, or they are brewing something good. They have been reading sirbean's comments and had a change of heart on their intended F-18 purchase. I hope not....... we might find the RNZAF becoming a support force for police helicopter operations. But on a serious front anyone have any idea why the hell this is taking so long!! |
|
|
|
Post by Chris F on Aug 29, 2010 18:44:24 GMT 12
Are you guys are been hard on sirbean....I cant not see any right mind politician persueing an Air Combat Force...in short it would be political sucide.
Look what happened to Don Brash over the anti nuke policy.."when we get into power that will be out on monday"-and he was going to re form an Air Combat Force-again was not a vote winner in the polls...cost him his job and the party another three years in the cold.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 29, 2010 18:44:53 GMT 12
Rodney Hide has nicked the paperwork hasn't he?
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris F on Aug 29, 2010 18:48:11 GMT 12
more likely eaten it...looking at his belly
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris F on Aug 30, 2010 15:30:00 GMT 12
I would still like to know if a Bell 47 sioux will be kept flying as part of the historic flight. I am guessing a Huey would be too higher maintaince to be kept flying. Anyone know?  ?? |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 30, 2010 15:58:28 GMT 12
There has been talk of both types of helicopter being retained by the CFS HF, but no official annoucement yet so far as I'm aware.
|
|
|
|
Post by sirbean on Aug 30, 2010 16:33:42 GMT 12
A friend just told me that there has been a poll on a message board(which one I will find out got interupted).
Its was "Do we New Zealand need an Air Combat Force as in strike aircraft"?
So far the poll is 75% NO
25% Yes
I guess the public are speaking I would love to see a nationwide poll on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 30, 2010 16:37:04 GMT 12
Wow, those poll results are almost so many against it that Labour would go ahead and do it, as they never listened to the majority, only the minority. Maybe we should vote that shower back in?
|
|
|
|
Post by sirbean on Aug 30, 2010 16:46:25 GMT 12
Can I ask..."whats the shower"? sorry
|
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Aug 30, 2010 16:56:00 GMT 12
He's trolling Dave... don't take the bait  |
|
|
|
Post by sirbean on Aug 30, 2010 16:57:23 GMT 12
Dear skyhawkdon...I am not just interested.
|
|
|
|
Post by luke6745 on Aug 30, 2010 17:05:22 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on Aug 30, 2010 17:07:58 GMT 12
"Do we New Zealand need an Air Combat Force as in strike aircraft" Sounds like the results are population group think here ie - once a critical mass in opinion occurs in a population, it sways a majority.
This issue is an old hairy chestnut - it should read: does NZ need a comprehensive defence capability that includes Airpower with Kinetic Effects? or in more simple terms - we need to take a serious look at our defence policy and not leave it up to arm chair experts, the "popular, oversimplified press" nor just the military.
If you think about it what is the difference between 16 Fd Regt and 75 Sqn in certain roles. We get wrapped around the axle of the deliver means.
|
|
??
