Steve TouchdownOriginally posted by Arthur
Are you absolutely sure? This Brimstone-hauling Tor is not perfectly readable, but still….
Hi Chaps,
I reckon that must be a fairly recent photo, Art (and if you scroll back up to Google’s post it looks like the first pic he posted is less than a week old).
I saw both the GR.1s back in Nov 2003 and they were painted as shown in the pics here. ZA328 certainly seems to have still been in Raspberry Ripple until at least June 2003 (photo on Airliners Net) so must have been repainted last summer/autumn.
Cheers
Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News
Steve TouchdownCouldn’t agree more, Art! 😀
As an esrtwhile fan of Blackadder I and the 80’s act “Cameo” I quite like Codpiece for transports.
Word Up, sucker DJs!
Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News
Steve TouchdownFlange
Steve TouchdownI wasn’t finger-pointing in your direction, plawolf…it was more a scatter-gun approach 😀
I’m pushed for time but a couple of points:
1) We have no idea if the story is accurate (it’s a newspaper article reported by the news media).
2) I have no idea of the modus operandi of the Royal Military Police: anybody else here? The British profile has been “low key” and non-confrontational. I would imagine lugging around 600 rounds of ammo each would be slightly obvious.
These weren’t troops fighting at the front. Is it not possible the ethos of the unit was a softly-softly approach and they simply found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time?
It’s a war zone: sh1t happens. Unfortunately you don’t get to choose the flavour, time nr place of the sh1t.
Best regards
Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News
Steve TouchdownI wasn’t finger-pointing in your direction, plawolf…it was more a scatter-gun approach 😀
I’m pushed for time but a couple of points:
1) We have no idea if the story is accurate (it’s a newspaper article reported by the news media).
2) I have no idea of the modus operandi of the Royal Military Police: anybody else here? The British profile has been “low key” and non-confrontational. I would imagine lugging around 600 rounds of ammo each would be slightly obvious.
These weren’t troops fighting at the front. Is it not possible the ethos of the unit was a softly-softly approach and they simply found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time?
It’s a war zone: sh1t happens. Unfortunately you don’t get to choose the flavour, time nr place of the sh1t.
Best regards
Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News
Steve TouchdownRe: A Daf900ex Mm66210 Brand New
Originally posted by chuck yeager
anybody any ideas what that means?
But of course 😀
Brand new Italian Air Force (AMI) Dassault Falcon 900EX with serial of MM66210.
One of the VIP fleet based at Rome-Fiumicino.
Ciao!
Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News
Steve Touchdown@iginally posted by SabreAce [/i]
PAF, the PAk army has only about 18 Cobras and the IAF has 2 squadrons of Mi-25/35s. The Hind got a bad name due to Afghanistan but the Cobra got whacked during IPGW as well. I’d take the Hind. [/QUOTE]
They’ll presently have 58 in total then won’t they.
Evidence to support your claim about “Cobra got whacked during IPGW”? No, I thought that would be too much to ask.
Of course you would take the Hind and, if the Indians had the Cobra instead, then you’d take that. You probably think the car you drive is the greatest too.
Why don’t you start a poll or a “my Hinds are better than your Cobras so ner ner ner” thread, SabreAce?
Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News
Steve TouchdownDepartment of Defense contracts 9th December 2003:
BAE Systems Applied Technologies, Inc., Rockville, Md., is being awarded a $44,143,802 cost-plus-fixed-fee, incentive-fee and award-fee, level of effort contract to provide system integration support for the TRIDENT I (C4) and TRIDENT II (D5) Fleet Ballistic Missile (FBM) programs in implementing interface control programs and performing special technical investigations such as the following:_ (1) modify and update system test procedures and plan for and participate in Strategic Weapon System testing during submarine overhaul, refit and backfit; (2) perform configuration management and alteration control via documentation, drawings and technical manuals; (3) provide logistics, engineering and material control support; (4) provide planning and monitoring support in ensuring compliance with the U.S. Navy’s portion of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START); and (5) provide maintenance support data system installation and support for the Strategic Weapon System, including materials._ The contract also contains effort for Tomahawk Land Attack Missile-Nuclear (TLAM-N) Support and Advanced Systems Studies._ Work will be performed in Rockville, Md. (97.8%) and San Diego, Calif. (2.2%), and is expected to be completed by September 2004._ The contract was not competitively procured._ Contract funds in the amount of $35,896,724 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year._ The Navy’s Strategic Systems Programs, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N00030-04-C-0017)._
_
BAE Systems Applied Technologies, Inc., Rockville, Md. is being awarded a $19,603,983 cost plus fixed fee contract._ This contract provides for Systems Engineering and Integration products for SSGN conversion of SSBN hulls including the SSGN Attack Weapons System (AWS), TRIDENT submarine conversion to SSGN, and Tomahawk Block III & IV all-up-round (AUR) operations at SWFLANT and SWFPAC._ Major tasks will include performing conventional weapons systems safety engineering efforts, developing the SSGN test measurement program (TMP) and test analysis guides (TAG), developing SSGN weapon system technical manuals, AWS in-place calibration procedures, AWS standard maintenance procedures, SSGN 726 class preventive maintenance management plans, one function diagrams, fault isolation procedures and AWS safety program plans._ Work will be performed in Rockville, Md., and is expected to be completed by June 30, 2007._ The contract was not competitively procured._ The Navy’s Strategic Systems Programs is the contracting activity (N00030-04-C-0015)._ Funds for the contract are FY04 SCN, $19,603,983. None of the funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.
_
BAE Systems Applied Technologies, Inc., Rockville, Md. is being awarded a $9,204,216 cost plus fixed fee contract._ This contract provides for systems integration support and logistics support for the U.K. Trident strategic weapon system and performing special technical investigations such as: (1) modify and update system test procedures, plan for and participate in strategic weapon system testing; (2) perform configuration management and alteration control via documentation, drawings and technical manuals; (3) provide logistics, engineering and material support; (4) provide maintenance support data system installation and support for the strategic weapon system, including materials._ Work will be performed in Rockville, Md., and is expected to be completed by 30 September 2004._ The contract was not competitively procured._ Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year._ The Navy’s Strategic Systems Programs, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N00030-04-C-0043)._
Steve Touchdown(vii)__Our predecessors noted the restrictions that existed on the availability of technical data on AMRAAM in their report on the Major Projects Report 1994[4] and recommended that pressure be maintained upon the United States authorities to provide the technical information required to assess AMRAAM’s capability. It is therefore satisfactory that the United States Department of Defense has lifted its prohibition and authorised commercial sales of AMRAAM to the Department through a direct contract with Raytheon (paragraph_24).
House of Commons Commission Report_(13 November 2000)
Steve TouchdownFor any others who inhabit parts of the World where news doesn’t seem to propogate, what makes you think it’s a UK-only problem?!
US soldiers faced ‘morass’ of supply problems
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/03/1075776059337.html
I know “The Age’s” reputation for left-wing agit-prop, but the piece is taken from the New York Times (it’s also hosted there but you have to register to access it).
Or, if you don’t trust professional civilian journalists to tell the truth then let’s try the “straight from the horse’s mouth” approach:
Military’s Logistics System Found Wanting in Iraq War
The military’s logistics system needs to be further modernized to better serve today’s war fighters, a senior Defense Department transformation official asserted here today.
Retired Navy Vice Adm. Arthur K. Cebrowski, director of the Pentagon’s Office of Force Transformation, pointed out to attendees at a downtown digital communications conference that U.S. ground forces racing toward Baghdad during Operation Iraqi Freedom had often outstripped their supply chain. That
happened, the admiral noted, in part because logisticians use separate information and command and control systems apart from those that warfighters
use.
“The fact of the matter is that there is dysfunction from both of those things, and that has to change,” Cebrowski declared.
To effect logistics change, he explained, the people in the supply structure have to have common metrics with the warfighters they support.
The admiral acknowledged that the U.S. military’s “just-in-time” supply delivery system is more efficient than the old-style, mass-based supply warehousing system. Yet, although “just-in-time” supply is efficient and predictable in many cases, Cebrowski emphasized that that system is “wholly irrelevant to what actually goes on at the pointy end of the spear, where you do not have predictability.”
On the battlefield “you have chaos: this means that some (logistics-related) things are going to have to change,” he maintained. In fact, the Army reportedly is studying logistics shortfalls in the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns, and has put out a white paper on the subject, according to an article in the Jan. 15 issue of Aviation Week’s NetDefense.
The white paper, published in December, “aims to provide clear guidance where we want to take Army logistics in the next two years,” Lt. Gen. Claude V. Christianson, the Army Staff’s logistics chief, noted in the article.
Recommended white paper solutions cited in the article include integrating Army logistics into the joint satellite-based, network-centric communications system; improving timely, flexible delivery of supplies to war fighters; improving logistical support for forces first entering theater of operations; and integrating the supply chain to improve communication with commanders and distribution of supplies.
Modern battlefields, Christianson pointed out in the article, are fast-paced and “not linear.”
“What we have now is a rigid (logistics) support system that does not work well in a flexible, changing environment,” the general noted.
—
Best regards
Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News
Steve TouchdownFor any others who inhabit parts of the World where news doesn’t seem to propogate, what makes you think it’s a UK-only problem?!
US soldiers faced ‘morass’ of supply problems
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/03/1075776059337.html
I know “The Age’s” reputation for left-wing agit-prop, but the piece is taken from the New York Times (it’s also hosted there but you have to register to access it).
Or, if you don’t trust professional civilian journalists to tell the truth then let’s try the “straight from the horse’s mouth” approach:
Military’s Logistics System Found Wanting in Iraq War
The military’s logistics system needs to be further modernized to better serve today’s war fighters, a senior Defense Department transformation official asserted here today.
Retired Navy Vice Adm. Arthur K. Cebrowski, director of the Pentagon’s Office of Force Transformation, pointed out to attendees at a downtown digital communications conference that U.S. ground forces racing toward Baghdad during Operation Iraqi Freedom had often outstripped their supply chain. That
happened, the admiral noted, in part because logisticians use separate information and command and control systems apart from those that warfighters
use.
“The fact of the matter is that there is dysfunction from both of those things, and that has to change,” Cebrowski declared.
To effect logistics change, he explained, the people in the supply structure have to have common metrics with the warfighters they support.
The admiral acknowledged that the U.S. military’s “just-in-time” supply delivery system is more efficient than the old-style, mass-based supply warehousing system. Yet, although “just-in-time” supply is efficient and predictable in many cases, Cebrowski emphasized that that system is “wholly irrelevant to what actually goes on at the pointy end of the spear, where you do not have predictability.”
On the battlefield “you have chaos: this means that some (logistics-related) things are going to have to change,” he maintained. In fact, the Army reportedly is studying logistics shortfalls in the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns, and has put out a white paper on the subject, according to an article in the Jan. 15 issue of Aviation Week’s NetDefense.
The white paper, published in December, “aims to provide clear guidance where we want to take Army logistics in the next two years,” Lt. Gen. Claude V. Christianson, the Army Staff’s logistics chief, noted in the article.
Recommended white paper solutions cited in the article include integrating Army logistics into the joint satellite-based, network-centric communications system; improving timely, flexible delivery of supplies to war fighters; improving logistical support for forces first entering theater of operations; and integrating the supply chain to improve communication with commanders and distribution of supplies.
Modern battlefields, Christianson pointed out in the article, are fast-paced and “not linear.”
“What we have now is a rigid (logistics) support system that does not work well in a flexible, changing environment,” the general noted.
—
Best regards
Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News
Steve TouchdownFor any of you guys discussing the merits of AH-1 Cobra vs. Mi-24 you may find this discussion on ACIG.org of interest:
http://www.acig.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?forum=14&start=9&topic=304
Kurt Plummer raises a couple of points in his reply on there which don’t seem to be answered. To be brief the answer to most is “affirmative”: the M65/C-NITE package, M130 chaff dispensers, NVG cockpit and AN/ALQ-136 countermeasures set all appear to be part of the “standard” refurbished spec (see attached document).
Best regards
Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News
Steve TouchdownOriginally posted by YellowSun
Just popping in to say thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread.The issue of the ‘new’ UH-1s seems to be fairly well understood – is there any concensus on the acquisition of any additional AH-1s.
The US must be in an even worse dilemma over continued military aid to Pakstan now.
YS
The “additional AH-1s” have been approved by Congress and the deal is currently being formulated via EDA (“Excess Defense Articles”) transfer. If you look back at the thread I posted regarding the original Cobras in the 1980s you can see this takes some time.
An added complication is that the contract for the upcoming Cobra work (not specifically for Pakistan: that’s just one customer) hasn’t been awarded yet.
Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News
Steve TouchdownOriginally posted by PLA
1969-1974? Damn they are more then 30 years old…
That’s how old Hueys are though, PAF Fan…the last batch for the US Army were all 74-xxxx UH-1H with just a few in 76-xxxx going to some FMS customers when brand new.
Pakistan may decide to go for modification to Huey II standard of all the flyable ones they take: this costs around $1.4 million per airframe.
Time will tell I guess
Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News
Steve TouchdownOriginally posted by PAF Fan
Many thanks steve
If you look under the 1997 Brown Ammendment Cobra spares were delivered then as well, so it seems Pakistans Cobra fleet may have been one of the least affected by sanctions, in addition to this Jordan (RJAF lent PAF planes in the past) could have been a source of spare parts for AH-1F as they have a close relationship with Pakistan and also operate the F version, but that is just me speculating….
Could well be the case, PAF Fan: the “shopping list” drawn-up during 2002 (ie for FY 2003 and onwards delivery) is a LOT bigger than I thought it would be and doesn’t specifically mention any AH-1 parts (although the T53 engine is common to both Hueys and Cobras) so maybe there were no shortages by that time.
The FMS list for 2003 deliveries will be a lot larger than the $2.5 million of 2002 if most of these were authorized:
05/23/02 102-02 Pakistan Glock pistols
06/20/02 061-02 Pakistan C-130 aircraft parts
06/20/02 062-02 Pakistan C-130 aircraft parts
06/20/02 063-02 Pakistan C-130 aircraft part
06/20/02 072-02 Pakistan C-130 aircraft part
06/20/02 075-02 Pakistan C-130 aircraft part
06/20/02 076-02 Pakistan C-130 aircraft part
06/20/02 077-02 Pakistan C-130 aircraft part
06/20/02 078-02 Pakistan C-130 aircraft part
06/20/02 081-02 Pakistan stainless steel tape
07/18/02 064-02 Pakistan F-16 aircraft part
07/18/02 066-02 Pakistan explosive detection equipment
07/18/02 067-02 Pakistan F-16 aircraft part
07/18/02 068-02 Pakistan C-130 aircraft part
07/18/02 069-02 Pakistan F-16 aircraft part
07/18/02 071-02 Pakistan F-16 & C-130 aircraft parts, F100 & T-56 engine parts
07/18/02 073-02 Pakistan C-130 aircraft part
07/18/02 074-02 Pakistan F100 engine parts
07/18/02 080-02 Pakistan F100 engine parts
07/18/02 082-02 Pakistan AN/RPC-7 radio parts
07/19/02 065-02 Pakistan PW F100 engine parts
07/19/02 083-02 Pakistan riot control gear
07/19/02 085-02 Pakistan bomb suppression blankets
07/19/02 104-02 Pakistan in-flight safety equipment
07/19/02 105-02 Pakistan F-16 aircraft parts
07/19/02 106-02 Pakistan C-130 aircraft parts
07/19/02 107-02 Pakistan F-16 aircraft parts
07/19/02 108-02 Pakistan F-16 aircraft parts
07/19/02 109-02 Pakistan F-16 aircraft parts
07/19/02 110-02 Pakistan C-130, T-37 and UH-1H aircraft parts
07/25/02 191-02 Pakistan UH-1H helicopter data
07/25/02 193-02 Pakistan C-130 aircraft parts
07/25/02 194-02 Pakistan C-130 aircraft parts
07/25/02 196-02 Pakistan AN/TPS-43(G) radar
07/25/02 197-02 Pakistan T-37 trainer aircraft parts
07/25/02 198-02 Pakistan ALQ-131 electronic countermeasures system components
07/25/02 199-02 Pakistan T-53 engine parts
07/25/02 200-02 Pakistan ALQ-131 electronic countermeasures components
07/26/02 103-02 Pakistan RS-710 infrared line scanner parts
07/26/02 190-02 Pakistan M113A2 armored personnel carrier data
07/26/02 192-02 Pakistan M113 armored personnel carrier parts
07/26/02 201-02 Pakistan J-69 aircraft engine part
07/26/02 203-02 Pakistan armored combat vehicle components
9/6/02 070-02 Pakistan C-130 spare parts
9/6/02 079-02 Pakistan Phalanx Close-In Weapon System
9/6/02 086-02 Pakistan flight simulators
By the way, PAF Fan, who lifted those list of serials for Pakistan Hueys?! Just interested to see which time period they came from as the latest list was only posted yesterday.
Best regards
Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News
Sign In
