Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - jetmech

Pages: [1] 2 3
   The title of the thread and Adroth's reasons for the Gunnex is the one driving my position. With all the back to back international exercises plus multiple local bilateral exercises and our very own Dagit for this year alone, shows enough statement of the Philippine resolve to learn, defend as well as work with allies (inter-operability and we have allies). Of course, not participating on a show of force by the same allies to the contested WPS due to the other side of national policies (makes me wonder if China asked if RP will participate or RP just folded in the game of poker).
   The AFP could just save the funds to improve Dagit to a combined arms exercise with all the new equipment (technology wise) the services received recently (defend an island, with evacuation of civilians [HADR], and repelling the incursion). Not just some insurgency or rescue of hostages. Realism to be able to identify gaps in capabilities and tactics/ doctrine. My last input.

   That means either you break the cycle (schedule) or when unplanned maintenance occurs (you want to wait to have a test fire to satisfy an occasion?).

Not to “to satisfy an occasion”, but to make a point. Exercises have a political purpose as well a training function.

...I mean you wanted all 76mm armed ships firing salvos to make a point to...who? Organize a training exercise at a short notice that will have a political purpose to/ for....

General Discussion / Re: C-130T Nr 5011
« on: October 12, 2018, 05:59:04 PM »
   If they acquired the capability, they're missing a lot of consumables from the requisition, like what sbhntr mentioned. I guess there's lining of relief not having to order from a computer system. if this was a bad input leading to a bad output, they can cancel the bid and do it over. One shop supervisor I know got fired (sent very far away from the shop) for not paying attention to details. The shop needed 10 pieces of rivets to fix an engine cowl, so he ordered ten without looking at the unit of issue (UI). On the computer, default issue/ order was 1000 pounds (there's drop down menu). Guess how many crates of rivets came rolling down our site after 1 week?

   Don't know how Malaysia's Airod is set up, quasi gov't corporation like PADC before or a unit of the military? The other thing I noticed among your anticipated (or hoping for) repair capabilities self reliance are the avionics or other main systems, let's say the FA-50, did the Philippines purchase any TDPs (Technical Data Packages) from the Koreans or Lockheed Martin?  Last time I checked, even the US DOD hesitate including this on the acquisition budget because they're not cheap.

   My main point here is that what's the plan? Will it be exclusive  for Philippine DND use or will it also do business commercially? Do they want it to be self-sustaining? Not relying on DND needs? They don't mix.

   That means either you break the cycle (schedule) or when unplanned maintenance occurs (you want to wait to have a test fire to satisfy an occasion?).

....Nevertheless, in the spirit of the Leyte Gulf anniversary, why not demostrate all the skill learned in all those exercises in this GUNNEX?

   Factor the cost of such demonstration. It's not cheap.

General Discussion / Re: C-130T Nr 5011
« on: October 12, 2018, 01:41:04 PM »
that is interesting. there is no mention of "associated consumables" (bearings, packings, etc) on the itb. could they be "government furnished parts" when sent to an overhaul contractor? somewhat like how the -404 engines were a separate buy from the fa-50 (based on sipri).

while the transparency may be good, I think its a negative broadcasting to the world which asset maybe down/unavailable. is it really necessary to put identifiers (tail number in this case). blade for 54H60 may suffice in this case.

    I was giving some benefit of the doubt that finally, a capability upgrade on repairs. Of course, we'll see. Hopefully, this is in preparation for a major phase, high time, perhaps. Instead of waiting on the last minute?

General Discussion / Re: C-130T Nr 5011
« on: October 12, 2018, 10:08:57 AM »
   Does this mean the PAF have the capability to overhaul propeller assembly? The requisition was for 8 blades, not assembly (end item). The 4 blade model requires the whole assembly removed & replaced when any of the blades are damaged. The newer versions (6-8 blade propeller assy), you can replace individual blades (when damaged) and just requires on wing balancing. Unless somebody made a mistake on the proper nomenclature and part number to use when it was ordered.

   The Philippine gov't should have left it as it was (ownership).  The transfer now place limits on one customer, DND. How about the commercial side it was supporting? Maybe small, but if the intention was to revitalize capabilities, the Philippine gov't should have infused the funds required for capital investments to acquire the needed equipment/ infrastructure to support the DND as well as the commercial businesses that will benefit from having repairs done locally. I hope they realize, military and commercial aviation products & services (even identical) don't mix with regards to regulations and standards. Commercial products have to follow ICAO/ FAA rules (oversight/ certification) while military end users don't.  Just like all aircraft supply manufacturers here in the U.S., they have the commercial and military contract sections.   

Too bad  :(

   Almost 50% off the projected budget, so it's not bad. Even it gets into integration problems (SAAB/ Boeing), it will not be as bad as the F-35. If you read what Boeing did, it was great and some of them were COTS (a must in US acquisitions). 

General Discussion / Re: Propellers of the BRP Gregorio del Pilar
« on: September 04, 2018, 12:00:40 AM »
  Worry about the shaft & gears.

lol! "if" bold and italicized.

Jetmech: I was looking at the lifecycle chart and I think its in between the end of milestone a and start of c. Milestone C is lrip but in this case, there is no lrip, its full production…..

For the curious ones, please see this site:
heck...folks can probably use it as a checklist and see where they perceive the program is and what problems may pop up. mind you, the conclusion you have may not be the same as the PNs' (which is the official one).

   The "ifs" are: Is the Wildcat of the PN completely identical with the SOKORs? If not, then that's another unknown. Or, was the SOKOR integration with surface ships made with CMS before the breakup of Thales/ Hanwa? Integration should have happened way before the production of the FFGs & the Wildcats. But this acquisition was ass backwards. They were still debating the CMS before the steel cutting! One software best practice: "design twice, code once" and design/ software changes takes more than 20% of acquisition budget. Life cycle support planning (cradle to grave) is the rest. Hopefully, there is no rewriting of software to integrate systems or inter-operatabilties with other Philippine assets, Del Pilars, MPACs (missile armed), coast watch systems (that balloon in Palawan) and what else. $$$$$$$ and time.

   Mr. A, I would be careful of SOKOR DAPA. How many SOKOR acquisitions (their own) lately have been identified with questionable dealings on their watch? Philippine interest first. 

  Should not be an issue if the Korean wildcat's systems were integrated successfully with Korean frigates/ DDs using Hanwa CMS. That's "if". ACQ 101, before milestone A or B?

General Discussion / Re: RIMPAC 2018 -- Philippine Navy
« on: June 26, 2018, 06:03:58 PM »
  Darn it, if I did not switch jobs I would be there 2nd week of July. >:( Could have seen the inside of both ships.

General Discussion / Re: Damage Control training @ PN
« on: June 14, 2018, 09:18:39 PM »
  First Korean made frigate by 2020.  Expecting the plank owners who will need to undergo systems training will start formal training late 2018 to early 2019. Hopefully, it will include sailing with similar class Korean frigates. May not have the same combat systems but the layout will be the same (1st deck & below most likely and the helipad/ hangar). It will be important to learn how the Korean personnel approach different casualty drills (casualty=human or machinery in DC terms). While over there, maybe source out how much is it to buy Korean made firefighting ensemble and other equipment, maybe cheaper.

   For a trained crew with regards to Damage Control, it took 45 days to learn different casualty drills and pass an acceptance inspection we're safe to sail. I'm referring to a crew swap of 2 different class ships. From an LHD to an LHA and vise versa. Cross training was important since the ships were completely different. Flammable/ explosive store rooms, crew compartments (ours went from 2nd deck to 01 level), entry to #1 & 2 MMR amidship, location of AFFF (foam) stations etc. After being allowed to sail, training/ inspection at sea again for the combat systems / general quarters and casualty drills all over again. For old folks, like REFTRA! Less stressful than INSURV.

Pages: [1] 2 3