A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Agreed. MJ can be detected for weeks after it is taken in some cases.
If you seriously want to join ADF, I'd wonder why you'd be smoking drugs? Isn't tobacco and alcohol enough for you???
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
If you seriously want to join ADF, I'd wonder why you'd be smoking drugs? Isn't tobacco and alcohol enough for you???
3 months is I think how long THC's (the active ingredients in Maryjane) linger in your system. If they have told you to come back in 3 months, they are testing your honesty. because if you have any trace of the drugs in your system, they will know you lied about the drugs being 'in your past' That's how I read that.
From here stay clean (and your test should prove that), now that you have disclosed you have tried drugs be careful about revealing that you were a 5 cones a day man - I'd stick with the 'tried it' line. Also, I'd slip into the conversation that you know and agree with the zero tollerance policy on drugs.
Just one final point - as the recruiters will be scruitinising your blood test, even if you don't touch the stuff stay away from people smoking the ganja - you can supposedly record traces of THC's from second had smoke.
knightrider4
Active Member
To reiterate on what these gentlemen have said, pot is a canibanoid which means it highly lipid soluble, ie the active component THC is stored in your fatty tissue. Depending on your lipid profile and how well your lungs work ie, gas exchange it may stay in your system typically for approximately 28 days. So therefore you can see that if you smoke daily then it will always be detectable particularly in blood tests but also urine.
weasel1962
New Member
t68
Well-Known Member
There has been a bit of scuttle bug going around that Australia is looking to increase the C-17 Globemaster fleet by two aircraft i have not come across written sources on the net. Just talk at the moment. Can anyone confirm or deny this. I always thought six would be the optimum number
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Plenty of rumours, but little of substance. There is a rumour that Australia will order one more C-17 for ourselves and then order a "joint" C-17 with NZ and "pool" our C-17 transport capabilities between the 2 nations with NZ obviously gaining a level of access commensurate with their requirements and level of investment in the capability.
I think part of the issue, is the strange inclusion of the "2x additional" C-130J-30's in the White Paper. RAAF doesn't seem overly enthused about them and indeed has publicly voiced concerns about operating fleets of the same aircraft but with mixed airframe fatigue life etc, bearing in mind that the existing fleet is now over 10 years old.
I guess RAAF's understandable perspective is, if we have money available and we need more airlift, than a C-17 offers far more bang for buck than a C-130J-30, or even 2 of them (though not in concurrent taskings obviously).
Combined with the battlefield airlifter, a C-130J-30, C-17 and C-27J/C-295 fleet of 27x aircraft beats the hell out of a C-130J-30, C-130H and Caribou fleet of 38x aircraft in overall airlift capability and in concurrent operations capability for modern combat operations, given the Caribou's complete lack of capability to operate in a modern battlespace where there is ANY sort of threat...
If NZ wants to help invest in such a capability as well, to add a 6th C-17A aircraft to the fleet and operated in a joint manner, than so much the better for both Countries.
Still, NZ has to deliver a White Paper in the next month or so and Australia has to decide on a Government and a new Defence Minister (either way) along with an updated defence capability plan due out before years end, so I don't expect a decision for a while just yet.
In a couple of months we should have a clearer picture if such is likely...
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I think the general idea is that NZ will contribute to the purchase of an "ANZAC" C-17, rather than front up the full cost of one. Any such purchase would leverage Australia's existing investment and support capability, however much that might have been screwed up by inadequate planning...
But again, we have to see if it is included by the Kiwi's in their White Paper. If not, it's just another bogus rumour...
If several NATO countries can pool a few C-17s, Australia and New Zealand should be able to do the same... Frankly, such a pool would be good for both New Zealand and Australlia, but of course, New Zealand will have to pull it weight financially...I think the general idea is that NZ will contribute to the purchase of an "ANZAC" C-17, rather than front up the full cost of one. Any such purchase would leverage Australia's existing investment and support capability, however much that might have been screwed up by inadequate planning...
But again, we have to see if it is included by the Kiwi's in their White Paper. If not, it's just another bogus rumour...
Would it not be more sensible to instead order two additional tanker/frieghters from Europe, as the five we have on order are not in service yet, and I am sure being dual purpose aircraft they would eventually have more use. I am not sure on their carrying capacity, but I feel it would have to be close to or even greater than the C130J.
The A330MRTT is a much larger aircraft than the C-130J, with much greater capacity in terms of both transportable weight & volume, & over a far greater range. But it can't carry the same sort of individual loads (it has no rear ramp: you can't get vehicles in it), or land at forward strips. They have very different roles & capabilities, & can't substitute for each other.
What advantages would the RAAF gain if it was to jointly operate a C-17 with the RNZAF? The RAAF is already operating 4 without problems so what would they gain by sharing one with the RNZAF? It seems as though the RNZAF would gain far more from this than the RAAF would. Just my thoughts.
Why does a trucking firm buy one more truck to add to their fleet of trucks? Why does a shipping firm buy one more ship to add to their fleet of ships? Its the same answer...
I can see where you are coming from, but it still didnt answer the question. Lets face it, if this did happen, the RNZAF would gain alot more than the RAAF.Why does a trucking firm buy one more truck to add to their fleet of trucks? Why does a shipping firm buy one more ship to add to their fleet of ships? Its the same answer...
If the RAAF get use of another airframe, it reduces the workload across the other four - if you don't see the benefit in this I don't know what to tell you...
I rather have NZ share a C-17 than sponge off Australia whenever they required a C-17 transport. As long as NZ pays their fair share for the transport, what is good for the goose is good for the gander...
It depends. If the purchase is 50-50 then yes, it would be fair and the RAAF would benefit, as would the RNZAF. But NZ would have to pull it's weight around more then just tag along a future RAAF C-17 buy.
What would the opportunity cost if the RNZAF bought into the proposed RAAF C-17 pool? The RNZAF is already looking at replacing or upgrading several aircraft or systems and the purchase of a share in a C-17 might force cuts, cancellations, or postponements.
RNZAF - Projects
RNZAF - Projects
A possible C-17 issue is the likely closure of the C-17 assembly line. The US has ordered around 210, far above the 120 originally planned, or the 180 agreed to later. C-17s have been assembled since 1992. The only reason why the US has ordered more is to keep the line open for foreign orders. India this year bought 16 allowing the US not to order any this year. The US may have to order or Boeing sell more to keep the line open for next year's orders, I am not sure. But if NZ wishes to partake with a C-17 pool, or Australia wishes to order more, they better do so very soon. Next year may be the last year to order this aircraft. Civil cargo companies have not ordered any, other cargo aircraft are cheaper, only the military prefers the ramps. The US will only order more to keep the line open for more foreign orders, if any are anticipated...
I figure if NZ pools and buys half or most of one C-17, whatever the threshold is to pool with Australia, they can use their C-130s and not have to replace their old Hercules for several more years, and then not necessarily Hercules. They could buy a few cheaper C-27Js at a later time which have around two thirds of the lifting capacity and a similar range and speed of a Hercules with a pooling deal for a C-17...
As I have noted before on another thread, while NZ didn't buy an amphibious ship. the military modified ferry they did buy is better at sea lift than any other nation the size of NZ. I can't think of any nation the size of NZ that operates any new C-130s or P-3s either... The key word is new...
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Vigilare enters service. This should improve the air pic over NT... Final acceptance in mid-2011.
Boeing: Boeing Vigilare Enters Service with RAAF After Successful Multinational Air Combat Exercise
Vigilare enters service. This should improve the air pic over NT... Final acceptance in mid-2011.
Boeing: Boeing Vigilare Enters Service with RAAF After Successful Multinational Air Combat Exercise