RNZAF UH-1H crash

[Trojan1981]

The two above posts

Up until around 2003 I worked closely with the NZDF guys/gals both in Timor and exchange programs, and I always found them to be a very professional and capable bunch who achieved extraordinary results with limited resources.

That said, the NZDF of old no longer really exists. The 'force' has been stripped out of it; the teeth pulled and the very keen staff who remain are left with inadequate funding and what is basically civilian hardware. Things cannot continue this way. I would propose allowing the RNZAF to conduct commercial ops (at commercial rates) and EMS/SAR in order to help subsidize training activities. Either that or break it up into it's functional groups and distribute among civilian departments where they are accountable for maintaining standards ie. P-3K's to customs etc.

[oldpinger]

Thread drift warning but "Off the shelf" seldom works 100% for Helos in my humble opinion- unless you intend to operate it in the same climate/role/fit/tactical manner and crew concept as it was painstakingly designed for by the makers. Works for a big transport aircraft- C17 as it is designed to do the same thing just about anywhere.
It's not the saviour everyone thinks it is, compromise is essential.

B71, if you think any aspect of Defence spending is not influenced by a lobby of some kind you're dreaming!

[500N]

oldpinger

By "off the shelf", I mean with mods included that have been done by others
- US or UK mil.

Name me two areas that we operate Helos that are not
already covered by US Military Helos already in that they
operate in the same environment as we do ?

I do not believe we have a big enough defence force to warrant
Australian customisation of the majority of equipment and therefore
should look for equipment.
- NOT first cab off the rank / the guinea pig - leave that to others
- buy what is already in use by one of the bigger boys
- consider interoperability with the US as a major factor
in decision making of the equipment we buy.
- 90% AND in operation is better than 100% but take years to get to operational levels.

Tiger ?

What does the Tiger provide that the Apache can't or couldn't ?

What does the Tiger provide by a factor of 20% more than the Apache
because the fact it is taking so long probably costs us that.

If we had purchased Apache, would it be operational by now ?

Would it have been able to be sent to Afghanistan to support Aussie troops
- political will allowing ?

[Bushranger 71]

Hi oldpinger. I reckon I said that defence expenditure is largely a consequence of lobbying. There are over 4,000 registered lobbyists in Canberra and both of the major political parties recently declined to implement tighter controls on their activities.

I have difficulty abiding the big defence spend cheer squad (which includes some former and incumbent military chiefs) pushing for increased defence outlay when they have been complicit in bad acquisition planning decisions that have squandered tens of billions of taxpayer dollars. If somebody was to run an objective operational evaluation of all 3 Australian armed forces, I assure you the outcome would be truly alarming.

Hello 500N. DWP2009 has this to say re Interoperable Capability:

'8.65 Interoperability is principally concerned with the ability of personnel and systems of different nations and agencies to work effectively together, safely and securely. Where it makes sense to do so, and it is cost-effective and in keeping with the policy settings in this White Paper, capabilities and systems should be designed to be interoperable from conception, not as an afterthought in the capability development process.'

Interpreted sensibly, this points to meshing of operating doctrine for combined and joint operations, communications means and procedures, advantaging military and manufacturer supply chains throughout the world, ammunition standards and so forth.

It does not mean operating exactly the same platforms as other forces with which Australia might become involved, as is trumpeted by many in support of acquiring say US-sourced hardware. Consider for example various RAN warships which are platforms from non-US sources but fitted out to have some commonality of weapons systems with US forces.

Some of the platforms Australia has and will shed (on present planning) could have been very cost-effectively put through US manufacturer upgrade programs; yet DoD planners have forfeited them. I would argue that neither the Abrams tanks, Tiger (or Hueycobra or Apache), MRH-90, MH-60R have the versatility necessary for an ADF that might soon find itself having to shed or mothball some capabilities because it is trying to be too diverse for a pretty small force.

All 3 Services ought really only have what can be properly manned and operated effectively within affordable defence spending.

Some defence debate is now bending more toward focus on the Indo-Pacific and need for deterrence against interference with sea corridors to be Australia's primary focus,in lieu of unachievable defence of Australia against armed attack. If that thinking gets cast into DWP2013 (as I believe it should), then the whole Force 2030 vision might be duly consigned to the shredder. Year 2013 might bring a big reality check for Canberra in terms of what is affordable.

[Felix the Cat]

can someone explain to me why - when finding oneself inadvertently in IMC, and not sure if you are still below MSA, the immediate procedure is not to slow to as near to stationary, pull collective and climb near vertically to above MSA

Helicopters are inherently unstable and the huey has no stability augmentation. In forward flight the aircraft is more stable due to the slip stream effect on the tail fin and fuselage, and less power is required because you are above effective translational lift speed. I think that 60 KIAS is about the best rate of climb speed for the UH1.