|
Post by phil on Aug 13, 2010 20:15:41 GMT 12
What would an Orion achieve in Pakistan?
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 13, 2010 20:11:49 GMT 12
I'm fairly sure it was played in the US a couple of years ago - it's been on the net at least that long.
It sticks quite closely to the Book, so presumably is a reasonable reflection of reality, and as already noted, Rudy Reyes portrays himself, and Eric Kocher is one of the advisers to the series and also has an acting part in it (although not himself).
As for the Hurt Locker... what a load of arse.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 13, 2010 15:53:21 GMT 12
You may find 57 is the new gate guard at the new gate.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 12, 2010 19:44:23 GMT 12
It's in the engine run-up pit. Looking a bit faded and worse for wear after years out in the weather.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 11, 2010 15:11:00 GMT 12
Good old Army, putting their Iroquois up for the event.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 6, 2010 19:06:08 GMT 12
At the end of the day having LAVs would mean: a. harder to promote the hearts and minds aspect of the deployment when all the locals see are 'tanks' rolling through their towns and damaging their roads (and we are there to improve infrastructure). b. Insurgents would just use bigger bombs, and quite likely try even harder to attack them since destroying a coalition armoured vehicle gains far more prestige for their cause. From an insurgent point of view, being able to boast your unit can destroy coalition 'tanks' has far more recruiting and fund raising benefit, as well as it's effect on the moral of friendly locals who see that the people representing their govt and providing security from the insurgents are still vulnerable. This has the effect of swinging support back towards the insurgents as Afghans are fairly pragmatic and will back the side that looks the most promising. Even those who are more loyal to the central govt will also be more hesitant to offer support to the coalition if the insurgents appear to be gaining any kind of control. So sending in more heavily armoured vehicles is not necessarily the simple answer it at first appears to be. Have to disagree Phil. Isn't there an obligation to provide the safest possible working environment for your troops. By that I mean equipment appropriate to the theatre. If the exercise was to simply win hearts and minds, send them in driving "Mr Whippy Vans' and handing out ice creams It does not need to be tracked vehicles, but if the bad guys are using IED's, appropriately armoured vehicles should be provided. And I don't mean Humvees. Troop safety comes first. To me (as an armchair admiral), if you start worrying about prestige targets etc., and reacting accordingly, the bad guys are already winning. That aside, a very sad time. Actually I'd have to say, if you are reacting to the bad guys by bringing in LAVs and reducing the effectiveness of your operations on the ground, then the bad guys are winning.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 6, 2010 19:03:10 GMT 12
Ex A-4 pilots who are now in the RAF and have flown fast jets there reckon the Kahu A-4 would have been a most welcome addition in the CAS role. True they could do with a night capability and a few other upgrades but they could have done the job. Remember the A-4 was dropping "danger up close" a long time before LGBs and GPS had even been invented! It excelled as a CAS platform. If we had gotten the F-16s like we were supposed to we would have had all that kit on them by now... sigh Sorry Don, but even TIALD wasn't up to the job and the brits had to upgrade to SNIPER. Nothing at all would be unacceptable, and the A4 has nothing. Also it has no relevant countermeasures system, survivability would be problematic. AN/ALE-39 with no form of MAWS leaves a lot to be desired. Perhaps SNIPER could be incorporated into the A4 NAS, I'm not sure if it requires a 1553 data bus or something more recent like 1776 though. Assuming it can be fitted there goes one of your STNs. Assuming you'd need internals + 300s to give a suitable loiter time over a TIC, that only leaves the two outboard, or centreline and an outboard for ordnance. Hardly worth the effort.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 6, 2010 10:42:12 GMT 12
At the end of the day having LAVs would mean:
a. harder to promote the hearts and minds aspect of the deployment when all the locals see are 'tanks' rolling through their towns and damaging their roads (and we are there to improve infrastructure).
b. Insurgents would just use bigger bombs, and quite likely try even harder to attack them since destroying a coalition armoured vehicle gains far more prestige for their cause.
From an insurgent point of view, being able to boast your unit can destroy coalition 'tanks' has far more recruiting and fund raising benefit, as well as it's effect on the moral of friendly locals who see that the people representing their govt and providing security from the insurgents are still vulnerable. This has the effect of swinging support back towards the insurgents as Afghans are fairly pragmatic and will back the side that looks the most promising. Even those who are more loyal to the central govt will also be more hesitant to offer support to the coalition if the insurgents appear to be gaining any kind of control.
So sending in more heavily armoured vehicles is not necessarily the simple answer it at first appears to be.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 2, 2010 10:52:31 GMT 12
The review of air guns will not include reclassifying paint ball guns as firearms.
Surely paint balling is a great team building activity?
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 1, 2010 18:42:47 GMT 12
It sounds like someone's getting carried away with the interpretation of the Arms act.
Technically, if you are under 18 you need to be under direct supervision by someone over 18, or someone over 16 with a firearms licence to be able to fire an air gun, which of course a paintball gun is.
Of course the arms act also states that no part of the act applies to any member of the Police, NZDF or NZCF while they are carrying out their duties. Hence the CF can fire their Norinco .22 'Sprotting rifles' (yep that's how it's spelt in the Chinglish manual that came with them), without the need for a licenced fire arms holder supervising each cadet on the range.
You would think that the same condition would/could be applied to official unit activities that involve paintballing just as much as it does to range shoots.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 1, 2010 9:24:57 GMT 12
There was a specific recruiting drive about five years ago the netted quite a few RAF pers across a range of trades, at the time the RAF were downsizing considerably.
Applying for lateral enlistment by someone from a commonwealth air force is always an option, although under the current climate it is rather less common.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 30, 2010 15:37:23 GMT 12
Possibly, but you have to realise that it's not up to the air force, there needs to be a capability requirement - a service the govt wants to 'buy'.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 29, 2010 19:50:53 GMT 12
Sadly, it'd be highly unlikely either scenario would be on the cards? Yep.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 29, 2010 13:32:26 GMT 12
Maverick is pretty heavy too - c 500-600lbs with launcher, depending on model.
Hellfire would be a more reasonable choice.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 28, 2010 16:00:28 GMT 12
Warhead size depends on what version of the Maverick...
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 22, 2010 19:35:45 GMT 12
Four people, out of the entire NZDF?
Must be a slow news day.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 21, 2010 16:44:02 GMT 12
I'm picking we will see the Macchis back flying by Christmas (in NZ!), but interesting comments from the PM. Ah yes, but the question is... Christmas - What year? It's now a standing joke that the Macchis will be 'gone by Christmas'.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 20, 2010 18:21:34 GMT 12
the enamel x12 should be pretty fine grained (at least my old jar is), on the other hand, the acrylic version is pretty grainy.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 17, 2010 18:42:28 GMT 12
Id love to know the official reason as to why was the NH-90 selected over the BlackHawk considering its a proven BattleWagon that can perform a wide selection of tasks and while the basic frame is 70s the frame has plenty of room for upgrades and improvement and surely must be a lot cheaper than the NH-90...or was the NH-90 selected as the BlackHawk is Yank??? The answer to that question has been posted at least twice on this forum....
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 10, 2010 9:02:23 GMT 12
Because of the cultural significance of beards in Afghanistan, all three services generally grow them when in theatre. Not sure the exact rules, it might be more at the patrol bases than at the main camp, but they are failry common.
|
|