dark light

comoford

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 94 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Navies news from around the world -III #2032551
    comoford
    Participant

    And even if they were, what exactly can the Indonesian military to Australia?

    The risk is that Indonesia becomes a failed state: islamic militants running riot or a dictatorship.

    in reply to: Subject Study- RAN Future LCH #2001905
    comoford
    Participant

    L-Cat trials. The user has more footage.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGYUaLzEh08

    in reply to: Subject Study- RAN Future OPC #2002368
    comoford
    Participant

    So what I don’t understand is why does the RAN seem set on such a narrow specification for its new OPVs? 1,200t-2,000t? Way too restrictive. …. :confused:

    The currrent boats are 270t.

    2,000t is rather generous. Quantity also matters. Anything larger is frigate territory – there are frigate replace plans too. The OPV is also suppose to becommon with minehunters and hydrographic vesesls. The White Paper makes it sounds the US Litorral Combat Ship program.

    in reply to: NATO fighters in AStan – why AMRAAM??? #2399109
    comoford
    Participant

    Laser-JDAMs in the second pic.

    in reply to: NK torpedoes SK Vessel #2004240
    comoford
    Participant

    Even a declaration of war….?

    They’re already at war. It’s just long ceasefire.

    IF it was hostile. it’d be interesting to see what the South Korea does. Everyone (besides NK) in th region wants to avoid a conflict.

    in reply to: RAAF accepts first Super Hornet #2416328
    comoford
    Participant

    Stop off in Auckland.

    5x Rhinos
    1x KC-10 tanker (Omega)
    1x C-17 (RAAF)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfZPj3Mf-Bs

    comoford
    Participant

    …. “equipment output for every dollar spent”

    Air Forces and Navies are expensive.

    in reply to: RAAF accepts first Super Hornet #2422006
    comoford
    Participant

    Sky TV News announced the first flight would be delivered from California via Hawaii and Auckland (in NZ I believe), to then overfly Canberra (for politicians’ benefit) and recover to Amberley, I think 23 March.

    Could be 4 or 5 aircraft – the first ones accepted have been A44-202 (Bu 167958) to A44-206 (Bu 167962). I would guess A44-201 is being retained in US in the short term for OT&E.

    For more on the ferry flight. Should be in Oz on Friday.

    http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a2526b843-ca73-4a9d-9550-628af94fb65d&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

    ……

    Eleven pilots and weapons systems operators, plus ground crews, are involved in the ferry mission which is being supported by hose-and-drogue equipped U.S.Air Force tankers as well as a leased 707 tanker operated by Omega Tanker – a commercial air-to-air refueling service previously used by the RAAF to support F/A-18 deployments. “We’ll do up to six refueling contacts on each leg, and we’ll keep the fuel topped up so if we need to divert we can do it without tankers,” says Wing Commander Glen Braz, Commanding Officer No.1 Squadron. For the ferry flight the aircraft will be configured with three drop tanks for a fuel load of 23,500-lb at start up.

    in reply to: US NAVY CLASSIC HORNETS GROUNDED #2423483
    comoford
    Participant

    It is unclear whether any RAAF or other international classic Hornet operators have been affected by this grounding.

    Carrier landings means a hard life. No word whether the USMC is troubled.

    in reply to: Haiti international relief effort through air and sea #2429290
    comoford
    Participant

    The Aussies seem to have taken over ATC duties in Port au Prince

    http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2010/Mar/20100304c/index.htm

    in reply to: UH-60Ms for CSAR-X #2430138
    comoford
    Participant

    Yes, the S-92 was aimed at the CH-3/HH-3/Sea Knight (CH-46) replacement category.

    The USMC went with the V-22 Osprey to replace the Sea Knights. Could be an option for CSAR to work with UH-60s if range is an issue.

    Osprey can self deploy. Deployability was a contentious issue during CSAR-X.

    in reply to: Possible 'double-digit' C-17 sale to Saudi Arabia #2430484
    comoford
    Participant

    One brigade combat team = 50-60 C-17 flights (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/12/airforce_airbridge_121909/)

    Saudi 10, Qatar 2, UAE 6; they could pool their resouces if it get really bad for the sheiks.

    in reply to: Possible 'double-digit' C-17 sale to Saudi Arabia #2430511
    comoford
    Participant

    Hmm. That’s a good point, & one I hadn’t thought of.

    The Saudis built an entire city to house foreign troops. To defend Saudi Arabia, you need armor. C-130 won’t cut it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Khalid_Military_City

    in reply to: Possible 'double-digit' C-17 sale to Saudi Arabia #2430724
    comoford
    Participant

    Or perhaps “special missions”…
    Flying in Ferraris, whiskey and women in for VIPS?:D

    Something like this? http://jalopnik.com/5101331/how-not-to-load-your-ferrari-on-a-plane

    Or, to fly in foreign soldiers to do some fighting for them.

    in reply to: Typical height and weight range of fighter pilots? #2395506
    comoford
    Participant

    USN Pilot

    http://usmilitary.about.com/od/officerjo2/a/pilot.htm

    ….

    Special Info:

    – Must be within anthropometric limits. No waivers.
    Height restrictions: 62″ – 78″ (male) 58″ – 78″ (female) (Note: * applicants under 63″ will not likely pass anthropometric measurements)

    ANTHROPOMETRIC MEASUREMENTS:

    In order to lower attrition rates and provide better quality applicants for Officer Candidate School and follow on training pipelines, CNRC is working closely with aviation community representatives in all areas. One particular area of concern is the anthropometrics measurements of pilots and naval flight officers. A strict process is used in Pensacola to measure applicants in order to determine which air frames they may qualify to fly. These measurements are based on several factors including height, weight, functional reach, buttocks knee length, and sitting height which are used to ensure the aviators safety on sitting in the cockpit as well as emergency ejections. These measurements include everything we have measured previously with the exception of buttock leg length. After studying the data the aviation community has come up with more accurate guidelines to apply for measurement ranges. The following are the accepted guidelines that should ensure compatibility with all pipelines. For applicants who may be close to limits I have access to the anthro website to enter data directly to check measurements. For qualified applicants who are possible selects who are close to limits we may also explore the option of sending them to Pensacola to check their measurements first hand.

    FOR MALE SNA:

    1. Thumb-tip Reach FR: 29.5 inches or greater
    2. Buttock Knee Length: greater than 22 inches, but less than 26.5 inches
    3. Sitting Height: greater than 34 inches, but less than 38.8 inches

    FOR FEMALE SNA:

    1. Thumb-tip Reach FR: 29.5 inches or greater
    2. Buttock Knee Length: greater than 22 inches, but less than 26.5 inches
    3. Sitting Height: greater than 33.5 inches, but less than 38.8 inches

    FOR SNFO (MALE OR FEMALE):

    1. Thumb-tip Reach FR: 27.5 inches or greater
    2. Buttock Knee Length: 20.5 inches or greater
    3. Sitting Height: 32 inches or greater

    The following guidelines give directions as far as height concerns. Generally an applicant between 66″ and 74″ will be compatible for all pipelines. [5’6 to 6’2]

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 94 total)