|
Post by isc on Jan 9, 2019 22:27:43 GMT 12
Yep, probably fence in a few other people too. isc
|
|
|
Post by exkiwiforces on Jan 9, 2019 23:14:24 GMT 12
This is a Cessna Chaps and armed with everything but the kitchen sink, but I’m not sure how the floaty thing would work? goo.gl/images/ahTQmz
|
|
|
Post by machina on Jan 10, 2019 4:57:39 GMT 12
Can it take off from Kaitaia though?
|
|
madmark
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 78
|
Post by madmark on Jan 10, 2019 7:44:34 GMT 12
Yacht race to Tonga, 1996 I believe Flaps down 70 Knot plus winds 20 Metre plus waves Altitude 200 feet Poor visibility which is why low flying was required In one case the P3 had to stay in visual contact with a yacht with no radio and in which the life raft had been ripped and blown away That was just one of about half a dozen yachts which sank and which were located and had over watch by P3s and a C130. Rescues were effected for all but one boat which sank without trace although an empty raft was found Without the RNZAF there would have been none. Their assistance was acknowledged by a US Senator as several boats were from the US However if you are confident the P8 could do this if required? Are you really confident that as you stated a P-3 can fly around at 100kts?
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jan 10, 2019 10:01:40 GMT 12
The figure came from a book I read however according to Janes the stalling speed at MLW is 125mph or about 108 knts. If you are not carrying (returning with) a payload of depth bombs etc (19000 lbs) which is included,this should reduce a fair bit but fuel load at the time (which I do not know) would also need to be adjusted. I assume there is a safety margin in the Janes figure. I do not have the performance curves for the aircraft so that's as close as I can get anyway. Does someone know what the figure for the B737-800B (P8) is? Incidentally I also spotted the original range for the original P3B was 5750 NM, however this has been reduced after rebuilds to 4300 NM. The P8 is apparently starting at less than this and is likely to suffer similar reductions during it's service life. Yet another reduction in capability and flexibility for the RNZAF?
|
|
|
Post by machina on Jan 10, 2019 12:26:56 GMT 12
The figure came from a book I read however according to Janes the stalling speed at MLW is 125mph or about 108 knts. If you are not carrying (returning with) a payload of depth bombs etc (19000 lbs) which is included,this should reduce a fair bit but fuel load at the time (which I do not know) would also need to be adjusted. I assume there is a safety margin in the Janes figure. I do not have the performance curves for the aircraft so that's as close as I can get anyway. Does someone know what the figure for the B737-800B (P8) is? Incidentally I also spotted the original range for the original P3B was 5750 NM, however this has been reduced after rebuilds to 4300 NM. The P8 is apparently starting at less than this and is likely to suffer similar reductions during it's service life. Yet another reduction in capability and flexibility for the RNZAF? What would be you preferred alternative then?
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jan 10, 2019 12:58:36 GMT 12
Yes that is the $1000 question. Unfortunately as has been pointed out it is now too late to worry about. The US Navy wanted and tried twice to get updated P3's but lost out because Boeing had more votes in Congress than Lockheed Martin. I would have preferred 4 engines considering prolonged over water flying. During that Tongan mission one P3 lost an engine on the first sortie but finished it before flying to Fiji for repair. No repair was actually possible so the crew made a second sortie completely on 3 engines. Would a P8 continue under the same circumstances with a single engine under EROPS? Again flexibility lost.
|
|
madmark
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 78
|
Post by madmark on Jan 10, 2019 13:45:03 GMT 12
I think the doubters and the conspiracy theorists need to stop taking the figures they've read on wikipedia or similar websites as fact and playing some kind of top trumps of P-3 vs this that or the other. The fact is the P-3 is knackered. It is past its sell by date. If the USN, the RAF and the RAAF say P-8 is an awesome platform then I believe them, as does the RNZAF. There is no golden pot of new sparkly P-3s, there is no magical all singing all dancing C-130 that can do everything P-3. There are a number of paper airplanes on various companies websites, that haven't been built and are unlikely to ever be built as the risk would fall on the lead customer. Given the big Western MPA operators have made their choice the only way one of these platforms would be built would be via some sort collaboration between various countries and we know how well that usually pans out. Even if one of these platforms was to be selected it would be many years from entering operational service. Now that our oldest frame is 53 years old this year, these delays would be unacceptable. The Japanese P-1 looks great but is beset with a number of issues which ruled it out of contention. The fact is, there was only one viable P-3 replacement and that is the P-8. Yes we will have to change the way we do business, I am sure if the internet had been around in 1966 there would have been some who were distraught that our new Orion was unable to land on water, had no turrets and used turboprops instead of good old reliable piston engines. Yes the P-8 has only got 2 engines, however during the combined operating hours of the RAAF, USN, Indian Navy so far there has not been one engine failure. In just the last year alone the RNZAF has had to shut down P-3 engines in flight, multiple times. I for one celebrate its purchase, and I look forward to this major capability upgrade entering RNZAF service in the near future. Orion is dead. Long live Poseidon!
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Jan 10, 2019 14:26:59 GMT 12
I always thought the RNZAF was a military organisation that was flexible? The P3K could operate from Kaitaia and about 30 OTHER AIRPORTS in NZ as needed at MTOW even in the wet. Currently the P8 can operate under those conditions from 2, Auckland and Christchurch Airports neither of which is a designated base. If Ohakea is extended by 400M like Edinburgh and Townsville in Australia then that would be fine or if NZ coughs up for some tankers but how likely is that? For the record the P8 will be fuel/payload limited at Dunedin as well, also Invercargill, Wellington, Woodbourne (a bit tight anyway) Palmerston North, Tauranga and Hamilton. As for the others which the P3 could get in and out of in a breeze, forget them. Seems to me flexibility will be a heavily reduced asset for the RNZAF in future. As long as the P8's are not expected to drop torpedoes or depth charges in the real shooting war things will be fine! So your suggesting we shouldn't replace the P-3 with the P-8 because it can't operate from regional airports at MTOW? So what do we replace it with?
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jan 10, 2019 14:38:52 GMT 12
The issue that put the P1 out contention was politics just as with the P3 update that the USN wanted. Unlike the P8 it can lose an engine and still continue a mission and was also cheaper and could operate off a shorter runway. The SeaHerc would have been even better. I would certainly hope a brand new P8 would not lose an engine this early in a program. As mentioned my figures are from Janes not Wiki. However if you want to call them a conspiracy website go ahead. I actually prefer their yearbooks. Another P3 option was the ability to demount the sonobuoy racks and carry 50 armed marines instead. So similarly as a worst case scenario the P8 could be easily converted back to carry passengers/and or freight something that it is more suited for. I hope you are looking forward to the so far non operational drones that in theory will allow the P8 to do the same jobs as a P3 but I wouldn't hold my breath as far as a NZ purchase goes.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jan 10, 2019 14:53:45 GMT 12
I think the doubters and the conspiracy theorists need to stop taking the figures they've read on wikipedia or similar websites as fact and playing some kind of top trumps of P-3 vs this that or the other. The fact is the P-3 is knackered. It is past its sell by date. If the USN, the RAF and the RAAF say P-8 is an awesome platform then I believe them, as does the RNZAF. There is no golden pot of new sparkly P-3s, there is no magical all singing all dancing C-130 that can do everything P-3. There are a number of paper airplanes on various companies websites, that haven't been built and are unlikely to ever be built as the risk would fall on the lead customer. Given the big Western MPA operators have made their choice the only way one of these platforms would be built would be via some sort collaboration between various countries and we know how well that usually pans out. Even if one of these platforms was to be selected it would be many years from entering operational service. Now that our oldest frame is 53 years old this year, these delays would be unacceptable. The Japanese P-1 looks great but is beset with a number of issues which ruled it out of contention. The fact is, there was only one viable P-3 replacement and that is the P-8. Yes we will have to change the way we do business, I am sure if the internet had been around in 1966 there would have been some who were distraught that our new Orion was unable to land on water, had no turrets and used turboprops instead of good old reliable piston engines. Yes the P-8 has only got 2 engines, however during the combined operating hours of the RAAF, USN, Indian Navy so far there has not been one engine failure. In just the last year alone the RNZAF has had to shut down P-3 engines in flight, multiple times. I for one celebrate its purchase, and I look forward to this major capability upgrade entering RNZAF service in the near future. Orion is dead. Long live Poseidon! Post of the year 2019 so far.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jan 10, 2019 15:01:00 GMT 12
Just have to wait and see how the P8s are going in fifty years?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jan 10, 2019 15:09:29 GMT 12
Yes, please do wait and see, rather than second guessing everything before it happens.
The armchair experts did the same thing here on the forum with the NH90 and A109, and they have proven themselves as excellent helicopters in service, proving the "experts" to be full of it.
|
|
madmark
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 78
|
Post by madmark on Jan 10, 2019 15:36:04 GMT 12
Post of the year 2019 so far. Cheers Dave! Jeffref I have no idea what you have been reading or smoking, but I would pay a lot of money to see 50 marines loaded into the area of the RNZAF P-3 sonobuoy rack. Maybe they do that when they are cruising around at 200', on 3 engines, below stall speed in a 70kt wind looking for missing yachties. Maybe those USMC guys are smaller than they look in the movies. Whatever, if you can point to a single incident of our P-3s removing their racks and loading 50 armed troops of whatever nationality, size or scale then I shall doff my cap to you. In the meantime I'll be looking forward to the arrival of the P-8, a modern MPA for a country with a massive maritime area of responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by pepe on Jan 10, 2019 15:45:33 GMT 12
The figure came from a book I read however according to Janes the stalling speed at MLW is 125mph or about 108 knts. If you are not carrying (returning with) a payload of depth bombs etc (19000 lbs) which is included,this should reduce a fair bit but fuel load at the time (which I do not know) would also need to be adjusted. I assume there is a safety margin in the Janes figure. I do not have the performance curves for the aircraft so that's as close as I can get anyway. Does someone know what the figure for the B737-800B (P8) is? Incidentally I also spotted the original range for the original P3B was 5750 NM, however this has been reduced after rebuilds to 4300 NM. The P8 is apparently starting at less than this and is likely to suffer similar reductions during it's service life. Yet another reduction in capability and flexibility for the RNZAF? There doesn't appear to be the significant difference in range as you think. From the US Navy website: www.navy.mil/navydata/fact.aspRange: P-3C Orion - 1,346nm with 3 hours on station. P-8A Poseidon - 1,200nm with 4 Hours on station. And with a cruise speed advantage of over 100knts the P-8A is going to get there a lot quicker.
|
|
madmark
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 78
|
Post by madmark on Jan 10, 2019 15:52:12 GMT 12
The figure came from a book I read however according to Janes the stalling speed at MLW is 125mph or about 108 knts. If you are not carrying (returning with) a payload of depth bombs etc (19000 lbs) which is included,this should reduce a fair bit but fuel load at the time (which I do not know) would also need to be adjusted. I assume there is a safety margin in the Janes figure. I do not have the performance curves for the aircraft so that's as close as I can get anyway. Does someone know what the figure for the B737-800B (P8) is? Incidentally I also spotted the original range for the original P3B was 5750 NM, however this has been reduced after rebuilds to 4300 NM. The P8 is apparently starting at less than this and is likely to suffer similar reductions during it's service life. Yet another reduction in capability and flexibility for the RNZAF? There doesn't appear to be the significant difference in range as you think. From the US Navy website: www.navy.mil/navydata/fact.aspRange: P-3C Orion - 1,346nm with 3 hours on station. P-8A Poseidon - 1,200nm with 4 Hours on station. And with a cruise speed advantage of over 100knts the P-8A is going to get there a lot quicker. And a significantly higher serviceability rate, so a much better chance of launching in the first place.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jan 10, 2019 16:02:15 GMT 12
You should probably complain to that well known conspiracy website Aunt Jane 1959-60 and subsequent editions. I believe I did say it was an OPTION? Would you like a definition of option? "A thing that is or may be chosen". Incidentally the stall speed of a Lockheed Electra L188 is 107mph or 94 Knts so a P3 without 8.5 tonnes of bombs/depth charges etc should have similar weights to the aforementioned L188 and would by assumption be closer to that aircraft. That storm did take place and is fully documented and the comments were made by an RNZAF pilot as a direct quote. It is not my fault that the RNZAF has selected a replacement that falls short of the replacee but that's how it goes. Very simply the aircraft has two thirds the range of the P3, needs runways of 2800M or double the length of the P3 (not available at Ohakea, cannot use MAD effectively, nor cannot fly as low and slow as the P3. In contrast everything in the P8 could be transferred to the P3 with no loss of capability. We do have a massive area of responsibility but with 2000 miles less range than the P3 as built the P8 will hardly be able to exploit it especially after it needs rebuilds which will certainly be required in the future.
|
|
|
Post by machina on Jan 10, 2019 16:02:35 GMT 12
I think the doubters and the conspiracy theorists need to stop taking the figures they've read on wikipedia or similar websites as fact and playing some kind of top trumps of P-3 vs this that or the other. The fact is the P-3 is knackered. It is past its sell by date. If the USN, the RAF and the RAAF say P-8 is an awesome platform then I believe them, as does the RNZAF. There is no golden pot of new sparkly P-3s, there is no magical all singing all dancing C-130 that can do everything P-3. There are a number of paper airplanes on various companies websites, that haven't been built and are unlikely to ever be built as the risk would fall on the lead customer. Given the big Western MPA operators have made their choice the only way one of these platforms would be built would be via some sort collaboration between various countries and we know how well that usually pans out. Even if one of these platforms was to be selected it would be many years from entering operational service. Now that our oldest frame is 53 years old this year, these delays would be unacceptable. The Japanese P-1 looks great but is beset with a number of issues which ruled it out of contention. The fact is, there was only one viable P-3 replacement and that is the P-8. Yes we will have to change the way we do business, I am sure if the internet had been around in 1966 there would have been some who were distraught that our new Orion was unable to land on water, had no turrets and used turboprops instead of good old reliable piston engines. Yes the P-8 has only got 2 engines, however during the combined operating hours of the RAAF, USN, Indian Navy so far there has not been one engine failure. In just the last year alone the RNZAF has had to shut down P-3 engines in flight, multiple times. I for one celebrate its purchase, and I look forward to this major capability upgrade entering RNZAF service in the near future. Orion is dead. Long live Poseidon! Hear, hear!
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jan 10, 2019 16:06:26 GMT 12
There doesn't appear to be the significant difference in range as you think. From the US Navy website: www.navy.mil/navydata/fact.aspRange: P-3C Orion - 1,346nm with 3 hours on station. P-8A Poseidon - 1,200nm with 4 Hours on station. And with a cruise speed advantage of over 100knts the P-8A is going to get there a lot quicker. Range of the P3 as built was 5750 nautical mile. It was reduced to 4350 NM after 30 or so years wear and tear. You can expect the P8 to have the same issues. And a significantly higher serviceability rate, so a much better chance of launching in the first place.Check the serviceability rates of the P8 after 30 years. You will have to do that.
|
|
madmark
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 78
|
Post by madmark on Jan 10, 2019 16:15:59 GMT 12
You should probably complain to that well known conspiracy website Aunt Jane 1959-60 and subsequent editions. I believe I did say it was an OPTION? Would you like a definition of option? "A thing that is or may be chosen". Incidentally the stall speed of a Lockheed Electra L188 is 107mph or 94 Knts so a P3 without 8.5 tonnes of bombs/depth charges etc should have similar weights to the aforementioned L188 and would by assumption be closer to that aircraft. That storm did take place and is fully documented and the comments were made by an RNZAF pilot as a direct quote. It is not my fault that the RNZAF has selected a replacement that falls short of the replacee but that's how it goes. Very simply the aircraft has two thirds the range of the P3, needs runways of 2800M or double the length of the P3 (not available at Ohakea, cannot use MAD effectively, nor cannot fly as low and slow as the P3. In contrast everything in the P8 could be transferred to the P3 with no loss of capability. We do have a massive area of responsibility but with 2000 miles less range than the P3 as built the P8 will hardly be able to exploit it especially after it needs rebuilds which will certainly be required in the future. Let it go Jeff. You are quoting Lockheed Electra performance figures for a P-3, which is nuts. Its like using performance figures of a 737 for a P-8, they may look the same but they are 2 very different beasts. You should consider contacting the RNZAF to let them know that they have accidentally chosen Ohakea as the base for the P-8 where, according to you, it cannot operate from as the runway affects the MAD or the runway is the wrong way around or something. I am sure they will be delighted to take your call and will immediately investigate basing options, such as Kaitaia airport instead. I would however like to thank you for your insight about how 50 marines can go in the area vacated by the sonobuoy storage rack, it has made my afternoon. I am sure if you had ever seen the inside of an actual P-3, or conversely an actual armed marine you would understand why!
|
|