Messages

166

Irish Air Corps / Re: PC-9 recon cameras?

« on: January 13, 2011, 07:52:35 pm »

In short, no they dont.
The SF260's could carry the Vinten Reconnaissance Pods fitted with type 360/140A 70mm camera's.
These pods are of course standard NATO fitting so yes you could hang them under the wings but the aircraft would have to be wired etc for them.
A pod was carried under each wing so as to provide a stereoscopic image as the end product, "3D" for want of a better word.
They (The cameras) are also "Wet Film" which will still do the job but in this digital age is relativly time and labour consuming to develop.
Im not 100% sure the pods can be fitted with digital gear , I would like to think they could, but I cant see this happening as the business has dried up in the past 20 years with the peace process etc.
Anyhow, with GASU having they're own aircraft and the continuing development of hand held cameras I cant see them being pressed into service any time soon, indeed they were removed from storage and placed in the museum hanger last year!! 
 

167

Aviation Waffle / Jet powered trailer on Dublin streets!!

« on: January 11, 2011, 05:59:40 pm »

Spotted this on a trailer being towed by a jeep in Capel street , Dublin today !  
It looks like it's a Heli turboshaft but don't know the make??
It's not an Allison 250 or PT 6.
Any ideas people??  

168

Aviation Waffle / Re: Seasons Greetings

« on: December 24, 2010, 06:25:47 pm »

Jaysis Frank how many different places do I have to say many happy returns on??? 
Again, same to you and yours!! 

169

Irish Air Corps / Re: Replacement for the Gulfstream?

« on: December 13, 2010, 06:11:49 pm »

Northrop Grumman’s RQ-4 Global Hawk UAV has established a dominant position in the High Altitude/ Long Endurance UAV market. While they are not cheap, they are uniquely capable. During Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), the system flew only 5% of the US Air Force’s high altitude reconnaissance sorties, but accounted for more than 55% of the time-sensitive targeting imagery generated to support strike missions. The RQ-4 Global Hawk was also a leading contender in the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) UAV competition, and eventually won.

The Global Hawk Maritime Demonstration Program aims to use the proven RQ-4 Global Hawk airframe as a test bed for operational concepts and technologies that will eventually find their way into BAMS, and contribute valuable understanding to the new field of maritime surveillance with high-flying UAVs…

I doubt UAV's will replace the CASA's anytime soon. As you see above the U.S are only evaluating the concept this year ! Besides, I think people forget the primary role of the IAC CASA's is fisheries protection whereby photographic evidence is gathered on each vessel. I don't think a UAV will be able to stand up in court and say yes I shot that image and yes that's the boat. I'm sure eventually with tweaking of laws(*) and stuff it would be possible but do you honestly see a pilot sitting in Baldonnel sipping coffee flying a marpat in busy European airspace?? Doubt it very much, it's different in warzones and the like!
*= Don't know how it works with speed cameras though?

170

Irish Air Corps / Re: IAC Calendar 2011???

« on: December 12, 2010, 08:22:48 am »

2006-2010 inclusive.

171

Irish Air Corps / Re: IAC Calendar 2011???

« on: December 11, 2010, 12:59:23 pm »

105 Sqn (photographic) is a very busy unit, having to look after the photographimc needs of the entire Defence Forces. As well as their 'Bread and butter' role of Maritime Patrols and Fisheries Protection they also provide photographers for aerial recconaissance for the Army, ceremonial events, and many other roles down to the basic passport photos of every member of the Defence Forces!!!
The year passes  very quickly and with the very busy schedules of all squadrons it is difficult to find time to shoot new images that the public have not seen before. There is no point in publishing images that have been used over and over again. The collation of images and the layout of a calendar is a lot more difficult than the end user thinks and therefore if its going to take up a lot of man hours so unfortunately the calendar had to take a back seat this year. 

172

Irish Air Corps / Re: Replacement for the Gulfstream?

« on: December 09, 2010, 10:49:59 pm »

There is a generic , twin sim at Bal now as well as the PC-9 one.
U am not sure if it's fully operational though.

173

Irish Air Corps / Re: Aerial shots courtesy of the Air Corps

« on: November 30, 2010, 11:10:18 pm »

Bit choppy alright ! 

174

Aviation News / Re: Clocks Running Out..Tornado F3 at Hendon

« on: November 29, 2010, 10:17:37 pm »

Was wondering where this one had got to! Dam! Won't be adding this to my list of low level shots! Seen it go down Tal y llyn valley (aka Cad) last year but it didn't make an appearance around my corner!!  

175

Aviation News / Re: E6 And Birdies

« on: November 18, 2010, 05:53:48 pm »

I'm almost certain this is a case of the distance being compressed by a long lens!! Those birds would want to be huge to be that size against a big aircraft!!

176

Aviation Waffle / Re: Spotting at Dublin in the early '80s

« on: November 03, 2010, 09:57:11 pm »

Now that you mention it Frank, the glass in Sydney had small holes to focus your lens through. I say focus cos I don't think the dustbin lid that is the end of my lens would fit through, lol!!!

177

Aviation Waffle / Re: Spotting at Dublin in the early '80s

« on: November 03, 2010, 06:15:14 pm »

Fantastic images there!! I started "spotting" as such at EIDW as a kid in the early 80's but unfortunately my instamatic camera didn't produce very good images !! Don't know where my prints are though? 
I did have one great head on image of Concorde rotating of R23, wish I knew where it was!
It's a bloody nightmare these days!! That bloody fence is a pain! A short area of reinforced glass at the usual spotters point would have been great. They use this in Sydney much to my pleasure while there and the likes of Manchester has a dedicated spotters area with static display, shops and photography platforms !!
I guess we'll never see the likes here!!
Cheers.

178

Irish Air Corps / Re: Bal Departure 7am? Foreign visitor?

« on: October 27, 2010, 10:23:03 pm »

Could well have been the Lear. It accelerates very fast,trust me!

179

Aviation News / Re: Fix for F-35 final assembly problem pushed back

« on: August 17, 2010, 10:00:24 pm »

Apparently the RN have now said they want to pull out of JSF and go for the F/A-18F!!!
This will save them £10bn and the planned carrier/s are already due to be made so as to adopt a cat/trap system should the need be, with electro magnetic cats to be used.
Problem is though that the RAF will be left with just the Typhoon to cover the roles of the GR4's and GR9's which are due to be retired to make way for the JSF.

This taken from the Sunday Times:

THE Royal Navy is set to save £10bn from the defence budget by dropping plans to buy the most expensive fighter aircraft ever built to fly off its new aircraft carriers.

It is set to swap the £13.8bn Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) project for an improved stealthier version of the Boeing F/A18 Super Hornet which currently flies off US Navy carriers.

The potential move was discussed at a meeting between Liam Fox and defence chiefs last weekend to discuss cuts to be made in the ongoing Strategic Defence and Security Review.

“JSF is an unbelievably expensive programme,” a senior defence source said. “It makes no sense at all in the current climate and even if we continued with it, we cannot afford the aircraft we said we would buy.”

The Joint Strike Fighter, produced by Boeing’s main US rival Lockheed Martin, would have been the most expensive single project in the defence budget with costs already put at £13.8bn and rising.

The 138 aircraft Britain planned to buy to replace the Harrier jump jets flown by the RAF and Royal Navy were originally supposed to cost a total of £7bn.

But they are currently expected to cost £100m each, making them effectively unaffordable given the dire state of both the defence budget and the nation’s finances.

The JSF programme was originally designed to be enough for both new aircraft carriers and four RAF squadrons.

Buying the more stealthy Super Hornet – known as the Silent Hornet - and cutting numbers to no more than 50 so there are only enough aircraft to fly off the carriers, will cut costs to less than £4bn.

That would save £2bn in development costs over the next parliament and a total of around £10bn over the next ten years.

The £10bn saving would be enough on its own to remove a substantial portion of the long-term cash shortages in the defence budget.

The MoD has already received confirmation from Boeing that it could make the improvements to the Super Hornet that the navy needs to produce the Silent Hornet.

The Silent Hornet will have a new internal weapons bay to reduce the radar signature of the aircraft and improved fuel tanks that would give it a longer range than JSF.

The aircraft is already able to carry more bombs and missiles than JSF and could be produced in time for the first of the two new aircraft carriers which is due to come into service in 2015.

The JSF programme has been beset by difficulties, with Lockheed announcing further delays last week and the British aircraft not expected to be delivered in time for the first carrier in 2015.

Switching to the Silent Hornet would reverse 30 years of flying short take-off and vertical landing aircraft from the Royal Navy’s carriers.

The version of JSF Britain planned to buy is a short take-off and vertical landing aircraft like the Harrier it was to replace. But the Silent Hornet is a conventional take-off and landing aircraft.

The new aircraft carriers are being built to take either type of aircraft, so while it will require the fitting of catapults and arrester hooks, it is not a major problem or cost to switch from one to the other.

A number of Royal Navy pilots are already trained to fly the Super Hornet off carriers having spent time on exchange with the US Navy.

The move will be bad news for the RAF, which offered to axe its entire fleet of Tornado aircraft in the hope that this would mean it would continue to get the JSF.

Now it is set to lose both its Tornados and its Harriers and not get the JSF, leaving it with a single attack aircraft, the Eurofighter, now known as the Typhoon.

This would in itself provide significant cost savings in that a single attack aircraft fleet is much cheaper to maintain and run than a number of different aircraft.

The JSF programme has been beset with difficulties. Britain initially joined it as a development partner and has already put £2bn into the programme.

This was originally expected to cost £7bn with a further £7bn for maintenance and upgrading during the life of the aircraft.

But Congress has reneged on repeated promises by US President George W Bush that Britain would receive full details of the technology on the aircraft.

This will mean that some elements of the aircraft can only be maintained by US technicians increasing costs still further.

The MoD refused to comment on any changes planned as part of the defence review but reiterated that Fox “has made clear that tough decisions will need to be made”.

Of course this is still hear-say according to a lot of sources and dunno where their going with the Silent Hornet?? No such aircraft as yet??

M.

180

Aviation News / Re: UK MP wants to stop flying in The Mach Loop

« on: July 28, 2010, 04:40:05 pm »

However, I defend my right to freedom of speech and if we want to do this topic to death again on this site then we are allowed to do so ! 

Stir the Sh@#t if you like but Im telling you now, this particular subject has caused some UK forums and websites to close in the past few weeks. You may have the right to freedom of speech but you dont have the right to cause trouble for the owner and moderator of this site/forum.
The subject of the Mach Loop and anti low flying on the net is being monitered closely by both sides in the "Ban low flying" debate, grant it on this side of the pond it doesnt stir up as much talk but I know for a fact that the likes of You Tube and aviation specific sites have been used to gather evidence against the RAF which is why I suggest we just monitor the situation over there and watch what we say about wheather low flying is good or bad.

This is not a "Ball Hop", Im deadly serious. The likes of Warplane.co.uk for example have been taken down and the website is currently under review, while other more open websites and forums have closed doors to non members and all posts are heavily moderated and thankfully at this stage its self-moderating by the people posting for the most part.

Ive said my piece, its up to the hopefully mature people posting on here to take what they want from it. Dont get me wrong, this forum may well be unknown to many people in the UK, Im just pointing out that the subject of Low Flying is a very closely watched one at the moment. This may well blow over as it has in the past but this time, thanks to the web (and I put my hands up, people like me!) the anti low flying people have all the ammo they need to keep stirring it up!!

 Heres hoping I dont have to change my user name