|
Post by 30sqnatc on Jan 10, 2019 16:24:56 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. If you've got rose coloured glasses on and lots of operating $$.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jan 10, 2019 16:47:06 GMT 12
No Madmark As I said before the stalling speed for a LOADED P3 is 125mph or 108 knts The stalling speed for a loaded L188 is 107mph or 94 knts A P3 without it's 8.5 tonne "load" will have a lower stall speed than 108kts and closer to the L188. I did dig out the relevant OEWs, MLWs, Payloads, Fuel and MTOWs and recalculated an estimate for a new P3 stall speed at the lower weight but it will be a waste of time explaining them. One correction The 50 Marines (or to be pedantic troops) option appears in the Janes 1965/6 edition page 255 Column 3 in the "Accommodation" section. "With minor design changes and removal only of sonobuoy storage racks seats can be fitted for approximately 50 fully armed combat troops. Alternatively a VIP seating kit is available." Presumably the option was not taken presumably because any requirement was covered elsewhere. I repeat the definition of an option since people here appear to forget! "A thing that is or may be chosen."
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Jan 10, 2019 17:16:22 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. You're searching for facts trying to justify a conclusion you've already reached. For what it's worth, the MTBF of one CFM56 is longer than the cumulative MTBF of four T-56s. Although given that the props are the least reliable part of the P-3 propulsion system it's a moot point.
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Jan 10, 2019 17:33:08 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. If you define 'politics' as source code, user interfaces and technical publications all only being written in Japanese, and being sold by a country with absolutely no history of military exports, then sure. P-1 is a formidable platform. It's often overlooked that Japan has a very real and very aggressive ASW problem very close to home. And the P-1 was designed to be a direct replacement without any significant changes in operating concept. But there's a lot more to capability than the aircraft. "SeaHerc' isn't one aircraft, it's actually a tiered family of aircraft. Unfortunately the final tier (ASW) is unproven and only a paper design. Lockheed is looking for someone else to pay for the NRE costs associated with modifying the base aircraft. The mission system is largely proven (based on Seahawk Romeo), but again, there's a lot more to capability than just the aircraft.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jan 10, 2019 17:34:28 GMT 12
Frankly So no CFM56 has EVER failed in flight? You did not answer the question. Would a P8 losing an engine continue with an extended flight over water with an engine out? The beauty of the P3 is that two engines can be shut down and it will continue to fly happily. Try that with a P8 Otherwise as to engine reliability no argument. The Kawasaki would give you the best of both worlds.
|
|
|
Post by typerated on Jan 10, 2019 17:46:37 GMT 12
50% of people have less than average ........
|
|
madmark
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 78
|
Post by madmark on Jan 10, 2019 17:50:03 GMT 12
Frankly So no CFM56 has EVER failed in flight? You did not answer the question. Would a P8 losing an engine continue with an extended flight over water with an engine out? The beauty of the P3 is that two engines can be shut down and it will continue to fly happily. Try that with a P8 Otherwise as to engine reliability no argument. The Kawasaki would give you the best of both worlds. Given that the alternative to continuing with an extended flight over water would involve getting ones feet wet, I imagine a sensible P-8 operator would continue to the next suitable airfield. As you point out a P-3 can indeed operate in some circumstances on 2 engines, however an engine failure in flight (as opposed to shutting an engine down to further endurance) is a significant event. In this circumstance the sensible course of action would also to be to procede to the nearest suitable airfield. The Kawasaki is not the panacea you believe it to be. The P-1 had a number of issues, not all of them political. As for operating the P-8 at low level, again you are mistaken. Currently the USN operates in this domain and will do until later increments of the P-8 spiral upgrade are released, with better sensors and the high altitude weapon delivery kits come on line. I suggest you take your tinfoil hat off, embrace the P-8 and accept that it is the future. Or you can keep thumbing through old Electra performance manuals and playing some form of tetris with Marines.
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Jan 10, 2019 17:55:29 GMT 12
Frankly So no CFM56 has EVER failed in flight? You did not answer the question. Would a P8 losing an engine continue with an extended flight over water with an engine out? The beauty of the P3 is that two engines can be shut down and it will continue to fly happily. Try that with a P8 Otherwise as to engine reliability no argument. The Kawasaki would give you the best of both worlds. I didn't say that. You obviously haven't had much exposure to reliability analysis. The simple version is the CFM56 is so many orders of magnitude more reliable than the T-56, it's likely that a P-8 skipper flying 300 hours a year would be flying for over 30 years before they were likely to experience an engine failure. While the regulatory environment is difficult, the basic 737NG is certified for 180 minutes ETOPS. I'm so confident that two modern engines are adequate for long overwater flights I regularly fly as a passenger between Auckland to Hong Kong with only two engines between me and deep blue sea. And felt significantly better about being onboard than I did the last time I flew in anything with T-56s!!!
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Jan 10, 2019 17:59:18 GMT 12
50% of people have less than average ........ I always preferred "The difference between average and 130 is the same as between average and clinical retardation"
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jan 10, 2019 18:30:42 GMT 12
Frankly Three things have to happen before I say P8, bring it on A runway extension at Ohakea and (wishful thinking) Woodbourne to allow it to operate with a full payload and/or max fuel as provided by the Aussies with Edinburgh and Townsville A tanker to get it to the same range as the ancient P3. The stated range performance of the P8 is over optimistic since it assumes continuous flight at or above 30000 feet which will not be possible. The promised drones that can actually do the job with MAD that the P3 can today. Flying from Auckland to Hong Kong gives you a lot of options for diversion after an engine failure. Flying in remote areas of the Pacific or Antarctic may not. Hopeully the P8 CFM56's will not have engine issues similar to the Trents. On a brighter note I hear the C130 replacement is not far away unless it is again delayed.
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Jan 10, 2019 19:38:25 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. Hear, hear Dave... great post! I'll be sad to see the P3 go but I'm very excited by what is going to replace it! There's another dimension to the P8 purchase & that is the complimentary capability that is looking fairly certain... that capability is going to lead a change in the way 5sqn operates by removing some (yes granted, not all) of the low-end tasks from the P8 allowing the latter to focus more on it's combat capability that with self-protection systems will allow it to go where the P3K2 can't... and the new networked systems allies will be using will allow RNZAF to step in & control allies drones even if we don't get them (which JeffRef may be right about). The integration / collaboartion of the P8 operators is going to be very intimate compared to current P3 fleets so I'd suggest the move to a P8 needs to be looked at with a wider lens that just peformance parameters. Bring it on!
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Jan 10, 2019 22:48:26 GMT 12
. In contrast everything in the P8 could be transferred to the P3 with no loss of capability. . Yeah because no engineering would be needed to do that. You just take it across...... You won't need to intergrate or certify it..... Or we could could just buy the most capable MPA available and operate that.. And as a bonus it can also do ISR, actually carry offensive ASuW weaponry and will find the odd yachtie more quickly than the P-3.
|
|
madmark
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 78
|
Post by madmark on Jan 11, 2019 9:21:29 GMT 12
Here you go Jeffref, I saw this and thought of you..
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jan 11, 2019 13:12:28 GMT 12
Oh Dear ISR EP3 ASuW P3C You need to go low level to find yachties especially in bad conditions which I think is where we came in. The P3 beats it hands down under those conditions. So the question is now NZ has bought the P8 what will we need to buy to replace the P3? What I hear is that the P8s will be deployed elsewhere on new missions and will not be available for those the P3 used to do around NZ, mundane tasks like Border patrol and Fisheries work in addition to finding the odd yachtie who has gone astray. US Coastguard version of C130J? We will probably find out when a replacement for the C130 is announced later this year.
|
|
madmark
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 78
|
Post by madmark on Jan 11, 2019 13:55:40 GMT 12
Mate, come in from the cold, resign your membership of the flat Earth society. Have a watch of this ukdefencejournal.org.uk/watch-p-8-pilot-explains-capabilities-aircraft/There are no issues with P-8s low level handling abilities, I don't know what your source is for this. Can you point to a report that indicates the opposite, or are you going to use the line its an airliner and airliners can't fly at low level? I don't understand what your point is, in case you missed it, the P-8 is replacing the P-3. Its pretty simple.
|
|
|
Post by corsairarm on Jan 11, 2019 14:54:13 GMT 12
This thread is getting boring. The P8 is replacing the P3 end of story. Personally I'm now more interested if what is replacing the Herc whether it being Herc VJ or something else, 1 or 2 different planes. Unless you 100% now what it is DON'T speculate as it will only get boring again. Lets just wait for the announcement in due course whether it be next week, month or year it is no using carrying on this or the Herc thread with dribble. Cheers
Richard
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jan 11, 2019 15:09:34 GMT 12
Oh Dear So many Donald Trumps on this forum If the P8 is not used to replace the P3 on it's current missions it is hardly a replacement. Time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jan 11, 2019 15:10:13 GMT 12
Jeffref, did you read the PM I sent you?
This thread is getting dangerously close to being closed again!!
|
|
madmark
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 78
|
Post by madmark on Jan 11, 2019 15:21:21 GMT 12
Fair one Dave. I really don't understand why we aren't discussing the P-8s new capabilities, the transition from P-3 to P-8, how Ohakea is going to change to accommodate the new aircraft, the uplift in training and the new opportunities that this aircraft (and others) will afford people looking to join the RNZAF. etc etc
The attitude of its not a P-3, so therefore it cannot possibly replace a P-3 is tedious, as is rumour dressed up as fact to try, for some unknown reason to denigrate the new aircraft.
BRING ON THE P-8!!!!
Bring on 2022 and the arrival of the first frame and with it the resurgence of maritime avitation in the RNZAF.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jan 11, 2019 15:36:26 GMT 12
What annoys me is there are very experienced No. 5 Squadron members reading this and smacking their heads at a lot of the nonsense being posted here by people who really haven't a clue. This forum is about sharing information and discussion issues, but accuracy is always key, not fantasy. And when the people out there who are actually flying these aircraft read the screeds of utter crap being posted, it embarrasses me and reflects badly on the forum. Freedom of speech can only go so far. So certain people had better either quit the crap, or the thread will be closed. I appreciate that some here are doing their best to present accurate discussion, and that is the only reason it has stayed open so long.
|
|