Jump to content

GMK

Gold Member
  • Posts

    1,108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GMK

  1. Not sure how you arrived at those conclusions about force structure off the back of my comments. UAE: new build light attack aircraft operating in an Air Force alongside the most advanced F-16 variants. Egypt: new build light attack aircraft operating in an Air Force alongside F-16 & Rafale. Afghanistan & Lebanon: new build light attack aircraft - I concede the point on constrained defence budgets.
  2. Two - which makes sense as this is a trial. Earlier trial work (Immenient Fury) resulted in the sales of similar aircraft to Afghanistan, Lebanon, UAE & Egypt. So they're operational (as in fighting) in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, the Sinai, and Yemen, albeit not necessarily operated by the US.
  3. These were used over Syria as well, apparently.
  4. You're right - though the OV-10G+ has the 7.62mm removed. At least this one has 50 cal in the wings:
  5. Well, it can operate from ships - carrier air group, anyone? Nice FAA "what-if"
  6. Seems to unpick the "A-10 is too vulnerable" argument, somewhat.
  7. Contemplating a model of one of the Broncos that recently returned from combat operations in Iraq. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/americas-antique-planes-battling-isis/ar-AAgyucu?li=BBnb7Kz
  8. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/americas-antique-planes-battling-isis/ar-AAgyucu?li=BBnb7Kz
  9. Interesting - pretty cheap. Plus we've already got stocks of Hellfire. My only concern with the AH-1Z is its gun. Maybe an off the wall option would be MH-60S fitted with "son of DAP" kit as an armed helicopter alternative. Then the slick version could also be bought, enabling divestment of the MRH-90 fleet. Win/win.
  10. Great points, all. But why not simply buy the AH-1Z? Re the WAH-64: it is a technical orphan, (the formerly RR engines remove any logistic commonality from the rest of the embarked fleet), the orginal customer is upgrading its (tiny) fleet from WAH-64 to AH-64E, it isn't in production, is a very expensive variant of an obsolete marque of the AH-64D. Re the Wildcat. Not just no: hell no! Albeit good looking, nothing I've heard about the Wildcat suggests it's a good fit for Australia. It would present the same risks the Tiger did in the day: developmental, non-networked, bespoke. Neither would represent value for money. The most important point: neither options were offered. Of the manufacturer didn't think any of their products were suitable for evaluation, let alone selection, why would the customer? On the other hand, interesting WHIF potential.
  11. I've loved that pic of the "close shave" when I first saw in waaaaaaaaaay back in the day. You're doing a great job capturing the essence of it.
  12. http://australianaviation.com.au/2016/02/more-p-8s-new-unmanned-aircraft-and-early-tiger-replacement-in-fully-costed-defence-white-paper/
  13. Or static line off the ramp for Parachute Load Follow (PLF - Australian term): the boat goes off the ramp, followed by the crew.
  14. Once you see the monkeys that maintain them...
  15. You're welcome cancelling the SH-2G(A) meant we got there in the end - the Romeo is very, very capable.
  16. Wholly subjective. And the AH-1W vs AH-1Z? One's a Cobra, the other a Viper. Regardless, the Tiger (in the Australian context) is a lemon.
  17. From Singapore: Bell and BAE Systems team for Tiger ARH Replacement "The AH-1Z is being aimed at Project Land 9000 Phase 3, the Tiger Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH) Capability Assurance Program (CAP), which is expected to gain traction with the release of the forthcoming Defence White Paper and associated documents. Land 9000 Phase 3 calls for the Tiger ARH to be either upgraded or replaced. "
  18. The Seasprite is classic project management case study fodder: the platform size limitation was dictated by a platform that was cancelled! The RAN was to buy an "offshore patrol combatant" - larger than a patrol boat, smaller than a frigate (corvette?). The existing S-70B Seahawk wouldn't fit, so a smaller aircraft was selected. Then the OPC/OPV (forget which, specifics don't really matter) was cancelled. Still persevered with the Seasprite and tried to shoehorn our procedures & requirements into an airframe that wasn't compatible with either. Nothing wrong with the aircraft itself, it should never have been selected in the first place. You're right about having products customers want. In seven years of capability development, I became sick of "used by the British Army/RAF/RN/RM" being the question, answer, & rationale by UK sales guys. British-made became shorthand for high cost, low quality, usually late. This is the (unintended) flip side to the stories celebrating UK Forces' triumph over equipment shortfalls. Why struggle against poor kit when you have the option of simply buying better from elsewhere?
  19. Like this 28,000 tonne boat? http://news.navy.gov.au/en/Dec2013/Fleet/729#.VrEBP-w8anM
  20. Before climbing in the Andes, I was told to get insurance for the cost of any potential AME/rescue, to the tune of $USD100k! Where I was, if you were rescued & couldn't cover the costs, your passport was seized until the debt had been repaid.
×
×
  • Create New...