Nope… the agreement was basically that Kaman gets the helos back and keeps most of the money. If Kaman is able to sell them on, then they and the RAN will split the proceeds.
http://www.av8r.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=6945d434-53ca-49dd-bde4-fdfb6d0487b3&
Kaman Agrees To Cancel Aussie Helo Contract
Sat, 22 Mar ’08
But Looses Little In Agreement.The next time you go to buy a new car, or airplane… you might want to take a negotiator from Kaman Corp. with you. The US helicopter maker reached an agreement this week with the Australian government to cancel a controversial 1997 order that was years behind schedule… but in the end, one could argue Kaman still came out way ahead.
The Hartford Courant reports the agreement — reached Wednesday, following a series of negotiations between both sides at Kaman’s headquarters in Bloomfield, CT — will leave Kaman with all the SH-2G Seasprite helicopters it had contracted to provide to the Australian Navy… and, most of the $600 million Australia had already paid towards the deal.
See what we mean?
As ANN reported, nine helicopters were delivered to Australia out of 11 signed for… and those birds were delivered years after the agreed-upon 2002 date. Furthermore, Australia alleged flight testing of those delivered Seasprites turned up safety concerns; the navy grounded its Seasprites in April 2006.
Incoming Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd ordered the contract cancelled last year… but Kaman played hardball, saying Australia would have to negotiate terms. The manufacturer also stuck by the Seasprite’s safety record, noting New Zealand and other countries use the helicopters with no major problems.
Under Wednesday’s agreement, Kaman conceded the delays, saying a former subcontractor was to blame — notably, in the slow development of a promised advanced avionics system. The manufacturer will buy back all 11 Seasprites, and try to resell them… with Australia and Kaman splitting the profits.
Kaman also agreed to pay Australia at least $37 million in retributions, and release it from a $35 million payment against work already performed. Australia will see that money regardless of whether Kaman is able to resell the helicopters.
So, Kaman keeps $563m (after it returns $37m), writes off $35m and any expenses not covered by the $563m… and gets a split of whatever the helos sell for.
The RAN ends up having paid $563m (after the refund), and gets a split of whatever the helos sell for.
Sens, the second image in the first of the three links you posted shows the same undercarriage layout as the “Yak-15” photo I posted… and it is also listed as a Yak-15: http ://xplanes.free.fr/lavo/images/yakovlev_yak15(rd10)_01.jpg]
As the rest of the plane is identical, I wonder if there was more than one Yak-15 variant… some with the wing-mounted main gear legs as for the Yak-3 it was derived from, and some with a new, inside-fuselage mounted main gear legs?
Then we will be seeing more soon, right?
😀
Yeah happy birthday moggy, whoever you are!
Look in the list of Moderators for this site, and you’ll find him.

Happy Birthday, Moggy.
Just FYI, I turned 46 on the 10th… deliberately kept it private, though.
True, and if the CVA program is going forward, Ark will not get her ’67-70 “Phantomisation” (actually a full modernization [less the propulsion plant], with flight deck enlargement, and catapult re-location).
Eagle still gets her ’59-’64 modernisation, as this was finished when CVA-01 was in the final decision phases. She gets her historic catapult upgrade in 1967, and can operate Phantoms, but not “comfortably”. Only £ 2 million more is needed for her to be “fully Phantom-ready” (vs the £ 32 million it took for Ark) so she gets that at the same time, and is the last to decommission.
Yak-15
Yak-17
MiG-9
La-156
La-160
LA-15
The La-15 was alleged to “have a number of technical superiorities over the MiG-15”, but was more difficult (and expensive) to manufacture, and was dropped after 235 were built.
The Yak-23 was a “fallback” design in case the MiG-15 failed… and was strictly a second-line fighter, used nearly exclusively by Warsaw Pact nations.
The Saab J29 Tunnan was a front-line fighter, fully the equal of the MiG-15 & F-86 Sabre.
During a visit to the UK in 1953, a group of Swedish pilots with Tunnans got a chance to take on US Air Force F-86 Sabres, with the two types proving very equivalent in performance. The Tunnan could out-turn the Sabre, but the Sabre could out-loop the Tunnan.
Type-46 AAW Destroyer
Never heard of it… pray tell the particulars.
All I know about is the Type-45 AAW Destroyer, one of which is in trials and 5 more building.
😀
I wish the C-133 was still flying. I always liked the look of it. 🙁
If you can get to McChord AFB on Saturday August 30, 2008 at 10:30 am, you can see one in the air.
http://www.landings.com/evird.acgi$pass*104585721!_h-www.landings.com/_landings/pacflyer/jul6-2008/Jl-79-c-133-to-new-home.html
“The only airworthy Douglas C-133A Cargomaster transport is scheduled to make its final flight on Labor Day 2008 from Anchorage, Alas. to Travis AFB, Calif.
The airplane s owner, Cargomaster, Inc., notified the Travis Air Museum earlier this year of the intent to donate the airplane to the museum. All that is needed to make the flight is enough fuel.
Included in the transaction are two other C-133As that have been stored at Mojave Airport, Calif. since 1974. They are N136AR (ex-40136) and N201AB (ex-62000); their value is as spare parts and components.”
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=82372
“Now for the financial details that you are all waiting to hear. WE NEED $ 67,000.00 WE HAVE $ 53,800.00 (as of 10:30 this morning, 12 July 2008) WE NEED $ 13,200.00 So please help us bring 61999 home. We are so close!
If the remainder can be raised by 1 August, N199AB will fly Anchorage to Travis AFB on 1 September!
The Airplane will make only one stop and that will be at McChord. This stop is so that the timing is correct for the opening of the Air Show. The C-133 is due to arrive on Saturday August 30, 2008 at 10:30 am. It is scheduled to make several passes and then land and Taxi to a special roped off area. We are working hard on having a reserved area for former members of the 84th.”
I am advised that:-
…the whining noise from P39/P63 is the reduction gearbox, not the drive the shaft. The sequence is, engine – drive shaft – intermediate bearing – drive shaft – reduction gearbox, which brings the line of drive from the engine up to the line of drive for the prop shaft.
Mark
The hollow prop-shaft, with the cannon barrel (or reasonable facsimile) protruding through the center.
From http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/oldstuff/justjane/Justjane.html
“Owned by a local farmer, Fred Panton, NX611 has had a chequered past, its survival due to various preservation groups and proposed museum organisations that never quite made it to fruition.
…
Fred’s interest in aviation and bombers in particular stems from the loss of his brother, a flight engineer on Halifaxes, in combat during the second world war. As a memorial to his brother, Fred obviously longed for a Halifax, and shortly after the war had the opportunity to purchase one for the princely sum of £100; a substantial amount of money in those days, so his father vetoed the idea. That Halifax would today be quite invaluable, as the only complete example in the U.K. is the one now to be seen at the Yorkshire Air Museum at Elvington, near York, a fine example of restoration from several ‘donor’ aircraft. Although ‘Jane is not a Halifax, she represents the thousands of aircrew that flew alongside Fred’s brother from the bomber bases of Eastern England.”
Any KC-97s still in the boneyard?
Valid points for including a few 20mm Oerlikon single mounts… but not complex maintenance-intensive mini-gun-style weapons.
![]()
No, the UK politicians send “next to ****** all” because they have no respect for any military person… or the military in general (so very few of them having actually served).