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 - horge

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
General Discussion / Re: Exercise Cambrian Patrol Results
« on: November 13, 2018, 12:57:59 AM »
lol, I guess when they say 4th they mean 1. Gold 2. Silver 3. Bronze 4. Certificate hahahaha

Yep.  :P

My point exactly. Someone is making sh*t up again. 👿
It is Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI), after all.

Apparently it's not enough to stand on your own accomplishments. Haven't these guys heard of the internet and fact checking. Shame.

It wasn't PDI that participated in EX CP, so it clearly wasn't even close to "their accomplishments".  ;D

Which is my way of saying 'we have to be careful'.
I'd give the SR team kudos for participating.
I'd also like to give the ACPA the benefit of the doubt: LTCOL Villanueva isn't quoted on that "4th out of 139".
I'd even go so far (and it's quite far indeed) as to give the author Frances Mangosing some rope: she's been
on the .mil beat a decent amount of time, even though her past work has been as-spotty. Her editors, on the
other hand, are where the buck o' blame ultimately stops.

the only request made by the Japanese government is for the PAF to build a facility for the proper handling and storage of the spare parts.

What news of ^that?

....and I fall for it every damned time.

But seriously, Mi-8 vs. MH-60R is apples vs. oranges.
A fairer match-up might be vs CH-47, but Chinooks are very long in the tooth and more to the point,
no one is touting them for PAF.

What the hell, some factors that render the Hip as inferior actually stand independent of fruit-type.

Foremost is yes, readiness rates, which ties directly into three problems: the first two being MIC of 75
hrs, and a very low quality assurance in the parts-supply chain, with complaints of replacement parts
being out of spec. It's not enough to say that Maintenance/Inspection is pinged every 75h, since the
real problem is how long the aircraft spends in downtime each time, and there are no reliable figures
to lean on precisely because of the third issue: Russian protocols wrt to Maintenance/Inspection are
different --documentation is poor, and this is one reason why .ru aircraft have failed to make greater
commercial inroads to Europe. Russian safety assurance standards are simply not up to Western snuff.
At least with MH-60, the OEM can claim readiness of 98%, or stated another way, a MTBOMF of roughly
20 hrs (albeit for Knighthawk, not necessarily Romeo).

The key factor in readiness, apart from better quality control in parts-supply, has been CBM: US rotary
air has benefited greatly from onboard livetime monitoring of an aircraft's systems, such that the MIC
of Knighthawk is 168 hrs compared to Hip's 75 hrs. That's a palpable indicator of superior readiness
for the 'hawk --even before we get to quantifying the DOWNTIME per cycle.

CPFH? We can try to eliminate the disparity in ground/air crew wages between RU and US by using
information from a Western operator of Mi-17, Berliner Spezialflug, which suggests a Hip CPFH (as
flown to quasi-Western safety standards) of around US$4,375, unadjusted for inflation since 2000,
or IOW US$5,900+ in 2013 ...versus US$5,000 for a Romeo 'hawk also in 2013.

Again, apples vs oranges, but those were the platforms mentioned initially.
Other capability-based differences are too dependent on fruit-type

What CAN be surmised is this:
If you want to hemorrhage operating funds AND have shit-low readiness, go with the Hip.

Hey, Manolet, I'm on your side in this.
Nevertheless, we are talking about a DND acquisition-process that is increasingly politically-driven.

If PAF get Hips, Malacanang can defend it with lower initial cost per airframe, which the electorate can more
easily digest than lifecycle-cost or platform-readiness discussions
. If PAF gets Hueys, never mind Hawks,
Malacanang can pretend to have gotten excellent terms obtained from the US because it flirted with the
Russians. Call it "sabong" selection if you will: recall the somewhat recent pronouncement out of DND that
JAS39 was the apple of its eye, while EDA Falcon remained in pole position..

I'd like to imagine that US materiel, new build or EDA, remains the leading contenderacross the board, but
in this particular process (combat rotary wing), all bets are off.

So does the PAF double the purchase - twice the number of airframes to get the same number of flyable airframes. Seems to be a false economy to go that way just because it would be cheaper.  After all the proof of the pudding is in the number of airframes flying. Not in the number sitting waiting for parts.

The President's fanboys can legitimately point out, as well, that the article you cited presents a milieu of
logistical contrasts that do not apply to the Philippines: in Afghanistan there was a US footprint; more to
the point, there was a US Blackhawk support-tail that would have provided logistical support for putative
Afghan Blackhawks --but ONLY for so long as said US footprint persisted. Here in the Philippines, there is
no such US support-tail for US Blackhawks, which any putative PAF hawks could piggyback on.

The real argument against Hip is that it's a shit platform, but good luck explaining WHY, context-neutral,
in a way that the ignorant will get it, or accept it. It's like having a discussion with Armata fanbois: why
even bother?

Unfortunately, the MOST accessible difference between Hips and 'hawks is cost.
You could purchase two 17-1's for the price of just one monkey-model Romeo 'hawk.

MH-60R - SAR - 31 DEC 2011.pdf


General Discussion / Re: Bald tires on FA-50
« on: November 04, 2018, 03:19:21 AM »
RETREAD tires.

I'd like to branch that off in a different direction, as a standalone comment:
Retreading an aircraft tire is a legitimate avenue towards PAF saving money, but if a tire
is allowed to wear down to the undertread (or to the point where heat of very-proximate
friction affects the integrity of the undertread within, such as is difficult to monitor)
, there
may be adhesion issues for the newly-applied (re)tread... and an aircraft tire throwing a
tread during landing is a less-than-pleasant consideration.

General Discussion / Re: Bald tires on FA-50
« on: November 04, 2018, 02:17:40 AM »
   Closest I could find right now, outdated though, 2007

^That shows how you measure extent of cracking, cuts, chunking or other damage which frankly
can be classified as more-localized effects than the cumulative wear apparent in the Morota pics.

Setting aside the obvious differences in tread-wear rates between USAF and USN contexts (since
the launch and recovery/landing methods are different), Section 3-8 ("TREAD WEAR"), as already
cited by jet, seems more appropriate, with respect to what sbhntr -who should be lauded for it-
spotted in the Morota photographs.

Fig 3-2 illustrates tread sections exhibiting different types of wear, for use as a diagnostic tool in
detecting camber/inflation problems, but also includes an illustration of "EXCESSIVE" wear, with
the tread ribs completely gone:

Section 3-8a mentions tread-wear indicators, which are oblong pits in the ribs: basically, once
the rib wears down to flush with the tread-wear indicator, it's past time to replace tires. In the
Morota photos that started this thread, there is zero rib remaining visible, so to me, it's rather
superfluous to ask where the tread-wear indicators would have been. The ribs are gone, the
protector ply seems gone in spots, potentially on down to past the undertread.

In any case, I understand that unlike USN, USAF refers to MWL markings (max. wear limit) on the
tire sidewalls (per MIL-PRF-5041 Rev. J), but marginally-overinflating the tire could cause the tread's
center to wear down excessively, long before the MWL marks would be pinged: such a trick might
artificially "prolong a tire's service life", but at what risk/cost? USN's safeguards seem much more

To get back to USN NAVAIR...
Although 3-8a notes that "the exposure of nylon plies  (fabric  reinforcement,  casing,  etc.)  is 
not considered a wear depth indicator", it also states "the maximum allowable tread wear for
tires not having wear depth indicators shall be when the tread pattern is worn to the bottom of
the tread groove at any spot on the tire, regardless of whether wear is the result of skidding or
normal use.", and this is what I believe we are seeing in the Morota photos.

Fig. 3-3, although illustrating much more localized skid (excessive brake) effects, nevertheless
also shows how the compromise of multiple tire layers/plies can lead to catastrophic failure. In
the photos that led to this discussion, we see nowhere near Fig 3-3's level of localized damage,
and for the likely reason that the braking environment and process in USN recovery is different
from that of USAF or PAF landings. Fig. 3-3 most likely shows tire damage after a single event
of skidding/excessive braking, whereas the wear visible from the Morota photos is more likely
the cumulative result of several landing cycles.

If PAF TO allows such a state of aircraft tires, there may be nothing left to discuss, especially
given how some want to interpret this thread as a personal attack on members of PAF, and/or
as a wholesale attack on PAF itself.

General Discussion / Re: Bald tires on FA-50
« on: November 02, 2018, 06:46:07 PM »
If there is no problem with logistics

Read my comment in ^that light.

I have sympathy for aircrew, adding even empathy for groundcrew.
You have to look much, much further uphill to find the bulk of the ignorance I'm alluding to.

General Discussion / Re: Bald tires on FA-50
« on: November 01, 2018, 08:57:56 PM »
that's not my organization. At least more a dozen set of eyes saw it!

it does indeed appear that someone made a judgement call that it was acceptable.

Doesn't matter how many Mk.1's "saw" it.
If the one uphill is ignorant, then any shit reported up just rolls back downhill.

General Discussion / Re: Bald tires on FA-50
« on: October 31, 2018, 06:30:37 PM »
no, it is as bad as it looks. there are no grooves on the tire...

I used my phone to get a better enlarged image. It's down, chords showing (2nd layer already).
It's not just balding, the fucking protector ply AND even the undertread seem gone in spots.

And the PAF wanted more high end toys?
6+ ply naman daw e... and only 3 appear to have been seriously compromised  ::)

General Discussion / Re: Fighters are back in Basa
« on: October 28, 2018, 01:24:14 AM »
You really gotta have to give it to Efrain for always getting great shots of these birds!  8)

Truly so.   :)

General Discussion / Re: US dangles F-16 fighters, attack helicopters to PH
« on: September 08, 2018, 10:34:34 AM »
Recalls (with weaker ooomph) those vendor's-promotional 'Philippine Air Force F-16 Falcon' decals/stickers
that were shared on timawa years back,

Duterte, Citing Hitler, Says He Wants to Kill 3 Million

Duterte apologizes to Jews for Hitler remark: ‘No intention to derogate’...

Duterte in Israel says sorry...


Politics and Government / Re: Sen. Trillanes' amnesty declared void
« on: September 04, 2018, 06:58:24 PM »
If he violated the terms of amnesty, then arrest him and hang him, if that's what the law demands.
All this widely-publicized pussyfooting, telegraphing your intent, is a load of unwashed horseballs.

General Discussion / Re: Propellers of the BRP Gregorio del Pilar
« on: September 04, 2018, 06:54:29 PM »
  Worry about the shaft & gears.

So much, this.
The magnitude of force that 'detached' the propellers was transmitted up the shaft
into the gearbox, and these have to be thoroughly assessed for damage.

Any misalignment or deformation issues, if not addressed immediately, you're looking
at cumulative effects, system-wide, as the vessel is operated..

This is why I detest early damage assessments being publicized: it cements in the
public's (and legislature's) mind what needs funding to be fixed,

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10