NZFF

Funny you should mention 75... I've heard rumours that they're bringing the macchi's back into service... which could led to a rebuilding of the strike wing...

as I said, just rumour and speculation...

The augusta109 are a good platform for a attack helo and are used as such in many other countrys ,would be nice to see them actully put to more good uses than just training AC ,euro505s would be nice but i dont see much of a calling for them here unless we needed to move into a all out war with ppls in the forest ,would be good target practice but

HardCorePawn wrote:

QUOTE (HardCorePawn @ Nov 21 2007, 08:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Funny you should mention 75... I've heard rumours that they're bringing the macchi's back into service... which could led to a rebuilding of the strike wing...

as I said, just rumour and speculation...

Funny that cos I've heard that rumor too, but for advanced training only...- part of wings. Interesting...

...well they certainly arent much use sitting in storage that is for sure.

I think that was one of the 'meet Labour half way' recommendations when they announced that they were getting rid of 75 and 14: At least keep the 'macchis for Jet Training so that we didnt loose all the related skills from the forces (all the jet engineers, keep some jet pilots etc etc). That would have obviously made any decision to re-establish 75 a lot easier.

It does seem a little pointless however....it would almost be a step backwards for the pilots to go CT4 > KingAir > 'Macchi > 757/Herc/Orion ???

Timmo wrote:

QUOTE (Timmo @ Nov 21 2007, 10:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It does seem a little pointless however....it would almost be a step backwards for the pilots to go CT4 > KingAir > 'Macchi > 757/Herc/Orion ???

Well the rest of the rumour went something along the lines of "The KingAir's are being retired"...

Although I started to get really dubious when they starting talking about using the macchi's inplace of the kingairs for 'twin training'... WTH?!?!? how many engines does a macchi have again?? oh thats right... a single centre-line thrust jet...

I don't believe we will be getting attack choppers - most models cost more than a F-16 - whats the sense of that? As said above you can hang some weapons on the A109LUH although I believe we need more A109s that what we are getting for that to be done. We are a maritime nation miles away from any where - combat jets are way more useful with better range and are easily deployed.

The rumours about the Aermacchis are in the press - see this article. Does not make a lot of sense to replace the Kingairs with Aermacchis - I reckon this is just an excuse for the Ar Force to bring them back (not that I don't want to see them back). They will be useful for training as Timmo said above - wil also give the Navy and Army some decent target practice and will be esaier to step up to something faster (ie F-16, Gripen) if the need or desire for combat jets comes to fruition again.

I think they may replace the Kingairs with something bigger like the Q300 and the line the Air Force will use is that they have been bought for maritime survelliance to assist the Orions and transport duties to assist the Hercules.

HardCorePawn wrote:

QUOTE (HardCorePawn @ Nov 25 2007, 10:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well the rest of the rumour went something along the lines of "The KingAir's are being retired"...

Although I started to get really dubious when they starting talking about using the macchi's inplace of the kingairs for 'twin training'... WTH?!?!? how many engines does a macchi have again?? oh thats right... a single centre-line thrust jet...

haha, didnt you know?: those things that look like tip tanks on the 339's wings are actually little engines

I think that article has it plain and simply wrong. There is no way they could replace the king airs with the macchi's- they wouldn't have got the king airs in the first place anyway if that be the case. It is not a machine to train multi engine stuff on neither is the herc or orion or b757 for that matter. The last I heard from a mate there was they were looking at bringing the macchis back for some advanced training prior to compleating the wings course- like what used to be done (although I think that was when they had the CT4Bs, not too sure). At the mo they do bugger all on the airtrainer and then go onto the king air and do a whole lot more on them before compleating wings. This would perhaps "replace" the king airs in that initial training role with the wings course which is where the media might have mixed it up. Also heard that new glass cockpit upgrades are on the cards for the king airs, (apparently all their cockpits are different, all over the show but still old steam driven inst) which is mainly to for ease of transition to the new glass cockpits that the hercs and orions will soon have. I very much doubt they would be replacing the king airs any time soon, and if they did I doubt it would be for nothing more than new/er king airs,- they are really the perfect machine for the job.

HardCorePawn wrote:

QUOTE (HardCorePawn @ Nov 21 2007, 08:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Funny you should mention 75... I've heard rumours that they're bringing the macchi's back into service... which could led to a rebuilding of the strike wing...

as I said, just rumour and speculation...

This was in this months Australian Aviation mag!!!!

scon wrote:

QUOTE (scon @ Nov 21 2007, 03:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This was in this months Australian Aviation mag!!!!

Well I'll be...

I think the King Airs are leased arent they? So there probably isnt much financial penalty for getting rid of them...I agree though, they do seem perfect for the role (as an aside, the RNZAF used to have some Golden Eagles didnt they)

Yep the old wings course was CT4-B > Macchi = Wings and then onto 75, 14, 40, 42 posting etc.

Timmo wrote:

QUOTE (Timmo @ Nov 21 2007, 06:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the King Airs are leased arent they? So there probably isnt much financial penalty for getting rid of them...I agree though, they do seem perfect for the role (as an aside, the RNZAF used to have some Golden Eagles didnt they)

Yep the old wings course was CT4-B > Macchi = Wings and then onto 75, 14, 40, 42 posting etc.

Ya the kingairs are leased from PAC I think. Wouldn't think they would be going anywhere in a hurry. Those golden eagles (which was a while ago) were a disaster. If I remember correctly the fallas in charge with finding a suitable aircraft went to the govt with their proposal (being cessna conquest if I remember) and one of the politicians looked up the cessnas and found the golden eagle and said that we can get this model which is practically the same but heaps cheaper. So due the political influence we ended up getting the golden eagle and the ended up being a disaster and they didn't last all that long. Went through engines like bottles of milk. Or thats supposedly somewhere along the lines of how the story goes.

421s are known to eat engines if not treated properly in descent.

CathyH wrote:

QUOTE (CathyH @ Nov 25 2007, 04:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With the commisioning of Canterbury, why now reactivate 75sqn as an attack chopper sqn with Eurocopter tigers, designed to deploy off shio to support the army, Army air suppor is a straight Air Froce Mission and uisng the eurcopter would mean interoperability with the RAAF, worth coinsidering, and is gives my old service a strike component again, besides, any air ops if future are liable to be in support of counter insurgency ops, and fast jets are not much use gfor that, you newed an ac that can get in close, hit the tangos, rearm and come back and do it over again!

Cathy

Actually fast jets are much better for SpecOps missions as they are less prone to being shotdown and when using JDAMs or GBUs very surgical in removing targets in built up areas. In Iraq alot of helicopters have been shot down including Apaches, fast jets and UAVs are a better option.

If we want jets, we would need a change of government in NZ, I think!

SUBS17 wrote:

QUOTE (SUBS17 @ Dec 9 2007, 09:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...fast jets and UAVs are a better option.

Here's a prediction: this generation of flightsimmers will make up the next generation of UAV drivers which will be the backbone of any Army.
I use the term advisedly, as realtime battlefield support will be where it's at.
There might not even be an Air Force...Transport Command would suffice.

Crikey, what would we use in flightsims?? A simulation of a remotely piloted vehicle?
Hang on, that would be the same as the real thing...