|
Post by saratoga on Jan 11, 2019 15:43:06 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. #1 and #3 are part of the whole picture being worked on, #2 is still only a (very expensive,remember we don't have spare cash!) vanity wish from the uninformed.
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Jan 11, 2019 15:46:31 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. SAR and Fisheries is a nice to have, but not the reason to have it. Can be (and a lot of argument saying it should be) catered for by other agencies and assetts.
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Jan 11, 2019 15:49:45 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. They generally find it very entertaining in a WTF way.
|
|
|
Post by camtech on Jan 11, 2019 19:03:23 GMT 12
This discussion seems to be running into a very circular manner, with much hypothesising and comments about what might be, could possibly be or "I thought it should be." As Dave said, let's keep it to reality and as many of us do not know the detailed rationale for the Defence Force's decisions, let us not try to redefine a project that has had a significant amount of time, money and effort put in to achieve the end result.
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Jan 11, 2019 21:50:03 GMT 12
Here's the opinion of someone who looks to know what they're talking about... www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2016-07-05/us-navy-gains-experience-fielding-p-8a-poseidon-expandsThe most interesting comment he makes is... The P-8A operates from a ceiling of 41,000 feet down to 200 feet above the water’s surface. Leading a tour of the aircraft’s flight deck, Lt. John Falzetta, a 29-year-old instructor pilot, attested: “This aircraft performs equally well as the P-3 at low level.”Yes there is a comment the P3 can stay in the air longer - it's not unexpected there'll be some trade-off but range for the P8A can be enhanced with tanking. The benefit is the far-enhanced systems capability and weapons options.
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Jan 12, 2019 2:18:03 GMT 12
..and at present, the only game in town.
|
|
|
Post by machina on Jan 12, 2019 19:16:57 GMT 12
Getting away from all this..I'd be interested to hear from those who might be in the know how the P-8s will be able to maintain/exceed the current capabilities with fewer airframes? I readily admit to being naive but in my mind I'm not sure how you can substitute for physical flying hours/time on patrol, and once you factor in maintenance etc won't those hours be reduced? Do superior onboard systems compensate for this kind of thing? Or is this where the yet-to-be-announced complimentary capability comes into play?
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Jan 12, 2019 19:46:24 GMT 12
Something along the lines of newer more efficient platform giving a higher time in air than the current fleet. Noting the current fleet is not fully crewed or available anyway, so likely no loss of airtime.
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Jan 12, 2019 19:55:09 GMT 12
Something along the lines of newer more efficient platform giving a higher time in air than the current fleet. Noting the current fleet is not fully crewed or available anyway, so likely no loss of airtime. The issue will be when we wait too long to refurbish the P-8s, and we have one undergoing major refurb and the others at lowered serviceability rates.
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Jan 12, 2019 20:18:20 GMT 12
Easy, just buy a second hand one from Oz...
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Jan 13, 2019 6:58:17 GMT 12
Easy, just buy a second hand one from Oz... I don't think we will have any spare capacity to sell off any, as they are not being bought 1-1. they additional capcity is being masde up with MQ-4C
I find it a pity that the NZG will only cough up for 4 airframes, this is all well and good in the short term but once the aircraft age the lesss avalibilty of aircraft NZG need to buy a minimum of 6 aircraft.
well I dont know the exact programme for the P8 but I would assume some additional downtime for systems upgrades and sofourth
an overview of 737ng schedule
•A check – every 500 FH. Now known as a P1 check •B check – every 6 months. Often incorporated into A or C checks •C check – every 4-6,000 FH / 2-3 years. Now P8, P10 or P12 checks •D check – every 24-40,000 FH / 9-12 years. Typically a P48 check
www.aircraft-commerce.com/sample_articles/sample_articles/maintenance_engineering_2_sample.pdf
|
|
|
Post by machina on Jan 13, 2019 9:51:56 GMT 12
I wonder what the chances of acquiring another 2-3 new airframes a bit further down the line are.
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Jan 13, 2019 9:57:10 GMT 12
I wonder what the chances of acquiring another 2-3 new airframes a bit further down the line are. Pretty sure NZDF are wanting another type of airframe to compliment the P-8 and they were also talking about drones...
|
|
|
Post by machina on Jan 13, 2019 10:42:12 GMT 12
I wonder what the chances of acquiring another 2-3 new airframes a bit further down the line are. Pretty sure NZDF are wanting another type of airframe to compliment the P-8 and they were also talking about drones... Sure, but I'm meaning in relation to maintaining just the desired P-8 capability once maintenance etc becomes more of an issue with older airframes.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Jan 13, 2019 11:10:12 GMT 12
P-8 future.
Plan A. Boeing shuts the P-8 line when the order book is completed. There are no more. If you want another one order it now. How a government justifies that is the problem.
Plan B. I read some where that Boeing in considering a new production line which will continue the process but with a changed (and cheaper) airframe. That would solve the "are no more" problem but could introduce a "mixed fleet" maintenance/spares problem. I can not locate the ref for this and do not see it happening.
I can't resist this: P-1 future, just goes on and on.
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Jan 14, 2019 22:27:05 GMT 12
I still can't believe the NZ government went ahead and bought an aircraft that is incapable of operating out of Kaitaia with a full load.........
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jan 14, 2019 22:38:16 GMT 12
Hahahahahaha welcome back Craig!
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Jan 15, 2019 16:32:28 GMT 12
I still can't believe the NZ government went ahead and bought an aircraft that is incapable of operating out of Kaitaia with a full load......... A full load out of Kaitaia would have the green party in tow...
|
|
|
Post by obiwan27 on Jan 16, 2019 9:43:11 GMT 12
Here's an interesting article, co-authored by a RNZAF member, currently a student at the United States Air University’s Air War College. It mentions the recent P8 purchase in relation to China's activities in Antractica and what their behaviour tells us about the future of space. We have trouble in our own back yard and perhaps this helps to explain the Foreign Minister's recent move to encourage the US to engage more in the Pacific. thediplomat.com/2019/01/what-chinas-antarctic-behavior-tells-us-about-the-future-of-space/
|
|
|
Post by isc on Jan 16, 2019 14:16:42 GMT 12
If the above artical comes true, ww should have half a dozen more P-8s, or a US Marine base, and a squadron of P-8s here, or somewhere in a similar distance from the Antarctic. isc
|
|