|
|
Post by hairy on Jun 14, 2005 17:33:02 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by hairy on Jun 14, 2005 17:55:37 GMT 12
[glow=red,2,300]I'M SERIOUS[/glow] 
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 15, 2005 1:20:01 GMT 12
There was some serious talk and consideration about the Beriev Albatross (a jet version much like the one you suggest) to replave the P-3K's after one visited Mangere in 1992. I went to the display and it was amazing. It has all the capabilities of the Orion plus the bonus of being able to alight on water - think of the possibilities even just this week when the Orions have had SEVEN call outs to stricken boaties. Each time they've had to arrange a boat to come and pick up people. In an Albatross they could alight and rescue the dumb yachties who try to sail into storms themselves.
Orions are awesome aircraft and do a wonderful job but I feel the RNZAF lost a very important capability when the Sunderland retired.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 15, 2005 8:27:20 GMT 12
The beriev was pretty impressive, I've got to agree, but if it was so well suited to the role, why didnt anyone, including the Russians, order any? The thing to remember regarding the "advantage" of being able to land on water is that just in most instances when an at sea resue is required, the sea is too rough to land a flying boat, and even worse to take off. During the Sunderlands time in service, it actually carried out very few open water rescues (A number of catalinas came to grief trying it postwar - Wartime rescues were for downed airmen etc, when the wether tended to be kinder)). The Beriev has not demonstrated any particular open water capability - the long, narrow hull with comparitively flat vee on the bottom would indicate it is like to have some problems in South Pacific open water.
|
|
|
|
Post by hairy on Jun 15, 2005 14:34:08 GMT 12
The reason why the Russians didn't order any was that at the time the A-40 came onto the scene the Russian economy and political system (i.e the way of life they had known for the last 80+ years) was collapsing and no new real aircraft orders were made, let alone orders for a totally new design. The Russian aerospace idustry is only now coming through with new designs into full production. The once leading Mig company is a shadow of its former self having nearly dissappeared, it survives by updating its previous products, their only 'new' products (since the collapse)are a trainer in development with French interests www.migavia.ru/eng/production/?tid=1&id=7 and a new fighter which has only progressed to the prototype stage. As for Sukhoi they fared a bit better having started deliveries of the fabulous Su-27 before the collapse, but they too have not come up with any 'new' aircraft untill now www.sukhoi.org/eng/gallery/?id=452&gallery_id=3&cur_gallery_id=3, surving on updates and redesigns of their Su-27 (the Su-30,32 and 33) as well as updating their previous products. As for Tupolev their last military a/c was the Tu-160, a design started in the '70s and to quote their website, "First flight of prototype - 18 December, 1981. The first serial machine took off in October, 1987. TU-160 started to enter military units of Ukraine long-range aviation. By the end of the 90s total output of TU-160 was 35 machines. Part of them was irrevocably lost because of disintegration of the USSR. For the time being in Russia unit was formed of about 15 TU-160 a/c." They now only build airliners designed in the '70s and '80s. So, as I hope I have illustrated, Russia,at the time, was no place to develop a new aircraft such as the A-40, A design now superceeded by the A-42PE. As for the validity of the flying boat in the Pacific, part of the work done by NZ in the Pacific is disaster relief to small islands after Cyclones etc. Most of the small islands hit recently had either no airport or it was damaged delaying the arrival of aid untill it could be shipped in. Those people needed help a.s.a.p. A flying boat that can operate in a sea state of 4-5 is more than capable of making open sea landings, not to mention in a sheltered lagoon or lee of an island in the Pacific under normal conditions. It would also help in fisheries protection, we could do more than just take photos. Please don't look at this post as me getting cranky, I am just putting forward my point of view.  Anyway we could probably pay for them with butter. ;D P.S explore these sites below, take a bit of time, its worth it, these companies are proud of their pasts and all have a 'History' section full of aircraft you possibly haven't seen before, some awesome shots in their Galleries too. www.migavia.ru/eng/www.tupolev.ru/English/www.beriev.com/eng/core_e.htmlwww.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/mi-helicopter.ru/gallery/foto/ |
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 15, 2005 22:34:16 GMT 12
I guess the thing about the Orion replacement is that currently there are so few options available. While I personally could see a Maritime recon version of the Airbus A400M, that option is not being pursued by Airbus at this time. Other than shorthaul, low budget machines based on airframes like the Bombardier Dash 8, the Beriev machines are about it. I still cant imagine one coping with a southern ocean "Green roller" wave though. Also operational costs will be a big factor when deciding a replacement budget being the driving forcewith everything. Operators of amphibians generally say that operational costs are 150 - 200% that of operating a similar landbased aircraft - even if the main operations are carried out from dry land. this is due to the corrosion control programmes required by virtually anything that operates in salt water. In addition the spare parts support for Russian aircraft is entirely unknown, its not like hopping across to Pratt and Whitney Canada Australia to get a bleed valve for your PW120 (Dash 8 engine) which would be less than 12 hours downtime. Russian Turboprops are cheap, but still have not acheived anything like the reliability of US or European engines. Conceptually the Beriev has a lot going for it, I'll grant you that, but the whole package has too many questions. - Mind you they said that about the LAV3 armoured vehicles as well! I dont think we'll see the answer for a while yet - Should have heaps more healthy debate before anyone signs any deal.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 16, 2005 0:08:27 GMT 12
I think the Goverment intends to keep the Orions on the job for quite some time yet, possibly another 20 years. They're getting new wings again I hear.
I also think they have worked out the way to do it. We have six Orions in the RNZAF. At the end of last year a man who is very much in the know, and mates with the Chief of Air Staf, told me that the operating budget and staff shortages had reduced the squadron to just three complete crews. So, the way I see it this is probably deliberate because if three planes can fly, three cannot, thus their life is prolongued.
As for working in salt water, the Orions virtually do anyway. When they are tactical flying down on the deck they get awfully salty. I used to love watching them come home and taxi through the 'bird-bath', which is a set of water jets in the tarmac that hoses the saltwater off them.
Have the US Navy ever found nything that betters their Orions? I'm not sure if they still use them, I'm out of touch on that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 16, 2005 8:31:24 GMT 12
Yeah the USN still use the P3s - I think it is even in limited production still.
If we have 20 years to consider a replacement, why not think what the ideal P3 replacement would be.....
I would suggest extensive use of composite materials in the airframe to 1. Reduce corrosion problems 2. reduce fatigue issues 3. enable a reduced Radar signature (If I was an enemy sailor the first thing I'd want to do is shoot down any P3s in my area!) It should be High wing for good visibilty and powered by 4 Allison 2000 engines (same as the C130J) The "tube" will include the latest modular avionics for easy upgrades and maintenance, and it will carry pylons for a couple of Harpoon missles on the wings. it would carry fuel for 12 hours flight, crew rest areas and a decent galley, and a weapons bay for Lindholme gear and anti sub bombs. It should be capable of STOL landing on unprepared airstrips and have fold -out engine servicing platforms in the wing (as on the Sunderland) I still wouldnt go for an amphibian though, but thats just my opinion... what would you add to the spec?
|
|
|
|
Post by hairy on Jun 16, 2005 11:16:34 GMT 12
Sorry to nit-pick, but the C-130J has Rolls-Royce AE2100D3 engines. Still thinking about my spec list.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 16, 2005 13:16:07 GMT 12
I do not think a high wing is imperative - after all they are loaded with electronics and cameras that do the watching, it is not all based on an observer's eyes these days (although they are still one method used of course).
I think perhaps a good option is simply new or newer Orions, they do a fantastic job as they are and it would take a lot to better them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 16, 2005 16:40:41 GMT 12
I think a high wing would be useful, set well aft of the observation windows if possible - most of the pictures of shipping Ive seen taken from a P3 have a (usually feathered) outboard engine in the corner! When the C130J was being developed the engines were referred to as Allison 2000 series, and it appears the AE2100 is essentially a sub varient of it. I accept your nit picking! :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by zknsj on Feb 21, 2006 21:50:32 GMT 12
boeing have just brought out a maritime patrol version of the 737-700 called, i think the p-8
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Feb 22, 2006 8:49:29 GMT 12
They certainly have, but there is some debate about whether the P-8 will be able to do all the things that the P-3 Orion can do e.g: economically loiter around for hours on end at low altitude. Plus, they are probably going to be a very expensive aircraft to buy! The RAAF were apparently looking at the P-8, but might instead end up going for a refurb of some of the AP-3C Orions and back them up by adding some UAV to the maritime patrol fleet for some of the survellance missions currently performed by Orions. Anyway, Lockheed Martin have re-opened their P-3 wing production line which will probably mean that a lot of current Orion operators will be now looking at a life extension program for their P-3 fleets, rather than a replacement for the aircraft. Only time will tell I guess: long may the Orion rule the sky!  |
|
|
|
Post by turboNZ on Feb 22, 2006 10:16:36 GMT 12
The Orion's are also very tough...look at the EP-3 that "survived" the collision off the Chinese coast from that idiot,..oops,..sorry, brave pilot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 22, 2006 22:58:22 GMT 12
They certainly have, but there is some debate about whether the P-8 will be able to do all the things that the P-3 Orion can do e.g: economically loiter around for hours on end at low altitude. The MMA (737-800) isn't going to be loitering at low altitude, ever. It is being designed to operate at medium altitudes, new sensors and weapons will overcome the need to stooge around at low level. Low level ops add allot of stresses to the airframes and increases the corrosion on the airframe. Aussie will replace the AP-3C's with something,(or upgraded them as you said) and they will only be getting 1 SQN's worth. We have committed to buy a Sqn of Global Hawks. These will perform the long range surface surveillance mission. The AP-3C replacement (or upgrade) will be the prime ASW A/C. That is not say that it won't perform the surface surveillance role. I believe AP-3C's have even operated over Iraqi. They AP-3C has probably the best ELINT gear in the world currently. This had made them extremely handy for operations in the sandpit. |
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Feb 23, 2006 11:09:29 GMT 12
Calum, I wonder if that's one of the reasons that Australia apparently hasn't been too keen on the P-8? The ADF (and RNZAF for that matter) tend to use their maritime patrol aircraft for a few different tasks than the USN do. I don't think the USN do much SAR work (that's the luxury of having the USCG! ) with their Orions, so they wouldn't need to cruise around at low level as much as the 'boys from Down Under' do. The AP-3C seems to be very capable and they have certainly proven themselves in Iraq. |
|
|
|
Post by zknsj on Feb 27, 2006 19:52:21 GMT 12
what about the version of the hercules that the us coastguard has, surely they would have similar endurance to orions
|
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Mar 10, 2006 12:38:48 GMT 12
"Sorry to nit-pick, but the C-130J has Rolls-Royce AE2100D3 engines".
Err....only because RR bought out Allison [in 1995]! They are, in fact Allison engines, hence the "AE' in the reference.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Mar 10, 2006 12:46:07 GMT 12
I recall that Beriev, "Albatross" at the Auckland show, and what a graceful aircraft it was! No one bought it of course, not even the Russians, but it looked good... for a Russian!
I've always had a theory about Russian aircraft, [having once flown from Singapore to Moscow in an IL62 VC10ski} and that was they made all their aircraft on the same production line as their Comrade Collective tractors, and as a result they never looked quite right. The Albatross was a real exception. It looked great in the air and on the water.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 10, 2006 22:51:38 GMT 12
I totally agree Colin. I too saw it at Mangere, and what a graceful and yet purposeful aircraft the Beriev Albatross was. It was such a great looking aircraft, if unusual. I seriously think it would have made a very good replacement for the Orion if it had come to that, and it would have made air sea rescue quicker if the aircraft can actually land on the water.
It's sad to think no-one baought it, that wonderful and useful design. The team that built it must have been very disappointed.
Another interesting aspect of that visit was seeing the reaction of Aucklanders to it when it flew in to the harbour. I guess it must have been the first large flying boat to land there since the Solents and Sunderlands in the 1960's? Quite a site to see, and a site to see the thousands turned out to see the site.
|
|
