L-29 over LHD-6???

Nice post…Greatly appreciated!!!

Yes it is indeed a false economy and no one knows how better to hide the REAL costs than the US. Companies come in bidding low but then tack on extra costs that they deem as expences for operations. We had that happen here until it was busted open and the government locked in “Fixed Price” contracts- these days it’s harder to find any company willing to take on a military contract- there are some but not as many as there once was!

Interestingly, the French employ a company that flied Hawker Hunters for similar purposes.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1606752&postcount=2

Its a false economy in my opinion.

This applies at soooo many levels.

Not at all mate, I believe that all military training in every form should be handled by the military and not contracted out to corporate contractors who don’t really care about the country- just their profits.

Especially since it will cost a contractor more to maintain their aircraft at the same standard as a first class military would require as they don’t have economies of scale in parts orders.

Plus on top of this they need to show a profit, generally with the higher levels of a company being paid much more then an Equivilent military officer.

Its a false economy in my opinion.

Not at all mate, I believe that all military training in every form should be handled by the military and not contracted out to corporate contractors who don’t really care about the country- just their profits.

Would you subscribe to that, but applied the the government as a whole (the military is just part of govenment). Contracting is quite common, since the 1980s.

Its not a lack of caring by contractors that is a concern, its the neglect by the ‘paid professionals’ that has been going into the training that is the problem. We have turds struggling to keep afloat and the easiest way for them to do that is push the job off on someone else.

Rather than blaming them for spending more (too much) money, you are now blaming them for spending less (not enough) money?

Not at all mate, I believe that all military training in every form should be handled by the military and not contracted out to corporate contractors who don’t really care about the country- just their profits.

Getting back to9 the L-29’s, it seems the US is running out of money in a fast way if they are having to contract private firms to fulfill military training requirements.

The two L-29’s

N179EP

N5959L

Are privately owned planes who rent out their services in a similar fashion to many other “Week End Warrior” companies over there in the US.

I know the USN are scratching around for $$$ but would this actually be an option that saves money? Most private ventures I know actually charge more. IMHO it would have been cheaper for the USN to use some of their T-45’s which better simulate the characteristics of modern day skimmer missiles, this evident by the RAAF using their Hawk Mk127’s in the same way during their regular excercises!

Rather than blaming them for spending more (too much) money, you are now blaming them for spending less (not enough) money?

I really love the first camo, te second:mad::mad:

1Saludo

Getting back to9 the L-29’s, it seems the US is running out of money in a fast way if they are having to contract private firms to fulfill military training requirements.

The two L-29’s

N179EP

N5959L

Are privately owned planes who rent out their services in a similar fashion to many other “Week End Warrior” companies over there in the US.

I know the USN are scratching around for $$$ but would this actually be an option that saves money? Most private ventures I know actually charge more. IMHO it would have been cheaper for the USN to use some of their T-45’s which better simulate the characteristics of modern day skimmer missiles, this evident by the RAAF using their Hawk Mk127’s in the same way during their regular excercises!

An explanation of what those aircraft are doing on deck.

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/06/about-those-fixed-wing-aircraft-on.html

Thanks for all.

1Saludo

You’re joking, right? Or are you mistaking BPE for Principe de Asturias, which is a modified Sea Control Ship.

You are right, I got the 2 mixed up, sorry.

An explanation of what those aircraft are doing on deck.

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/06/about-those-fixed-wing-aircraft-on.html

So in oter words performing the same role as the FRADU Hawks in the UK.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/establishments/naval-bases-and-air-stations/rnas-culdrose/fleet-requirements-air-direction-unit-fradu/

The BPE is US style, it is basically a modified Sea Control Ship.

You’re joking, right? Or are you mistaking BPE for Principe de Asturias, which is a modified Sea Control Ship.

PdA – 17000 tons full load, optimised for maximum efficiency of STOVL air group, 196 x 24 metres, COGAG propulsion via a single shaft . . .

BPE – 27000 tons full load, 35 metres longer, 8 metres (a third!) wider; a completely different hull shape; an LHD (unlike the SCS) with a secondary (very secondary) aircraft carrier role, dock, vehicle deck, etc; electric propulsion via two double-ended Siemens azimuthal pods, powered by diesels & gas turbines.

It’s a ship. That’s about as much as it owes to the SCS. Nor does it owe anything to US LHD designs.

The BPE is US style, it is basically a modified Sea Control Ship.

10,000 tons worth of ‘modification’?! I think you’re selling the BPE design seriously short.

The BPE is US style, it is basically a modified Sea Control Ship.

Err, what? I thought it was an LHD….

Yes, I understand, looking at the LHD. Wasen’t expecting RAS gear on two sides. But the point is, the BPE Juan Carlos is not a US-style ship, so they (the Spaniards) have adopted that feature in their own deisng. Whereas e.g. Italians, French, Japanese, South Koreans and Brits have not.

The BPE is US style, it is basically a modified Sea Control Ship.

All US style carrier types (amphibs, sea control ships and CV’s) only have RAS stations on the starboard side.

Yes, I understand, looking at the LHD. Wasn’t expecting RAS gear on two sides. But the point is, the BPE Juan Carlos is not a US-style ship, so they (the Spaniards) have adopted that feature in their own desing. Whereas e.g. Italians, French, Japanese, South Koreans and Brits have not.

Principe d’Asturias has 2 RAS stations on starboard, in front and to the rear of the island structure. Chakri Nauebet has and Juan Carlos I (BPE) have 1 RAS station on starboard, respectively to the front and to the rear of their island structures.

All US style carrier types (amphibs, sea control ships and CV’s) only have RAS stations on the starboard side.