|
Post by ErrolC on Jun 19, 2016 15:38:03 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Jun 20, 2016 19:20:50 GMT 12
Is Whenuapai's runway seriously too short for the _P-8 to take off from with a full fuel load? If that's the case it's not the right type for us, unless they are going to extend the runway or move the squadron (two unlikely scenarios). A new runway is cheaper than a new P-8 :-)
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Jun 20, 2016 21:03:42 GMT 12
A new runway try a new airbase, If they sold Whenuapai for housing & moved to a brand new base somewhere in Northland, there be sufficient money left over for P8's (yes I know this wouldn't work, the RNZAF doesn't give any kickbacks).
|
|
|
Post by kiwiredley on Jun 21, 2016 17:45:50 GMT 12
I remember reading somewhere that when Japan was looking at replacements aircraft for their P3'S one of the short comings identified with the P8 was its runway requirements in regard to some of the Japenese Island runways
|
|
|
Post by kiwiredley on Jun 21, 2016 18:03:18 GMT 12
So maybe the P1 Kawasaki is a better fit for us as a P3 replacement,I know they are keen to get interest from outside operators as they took an Aircraft to RIAT last year pitching it to the RAF. I guess it would be too much of a risk for us to buy something not from a mainstream supplier. Bit of a shame as it looks good on paper. At least it has 4 engines, in my mind ETOPS is fine when in comes to Airliners cruising over water at 30,000 plus feet but 2 engine Patrol Aircraft operating low level miles away from land I am not so sure.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Jun 22, 2016 15:03:39 GMT 12
So maybe the P1 Kawasaki is a better fit for us as a P3 replacement,I know they are keen to get interest from outside operators as they took an Aircraft to RIAT last year pitching it to the RAF. I guess it would be too much of a risk for us to buy something not from a mainstream supplier. Bit of a shame as it looks good on paper. At least it has 4 engines, in my mind ETOPS is fine when in comes to Airliners cruising over water at 30,000 plus feet but 2 engine Patrol Aircraft operating low level miles away from land I am not so sure. 4 engines is double the cost, especially with engine reliability these days. The P-8 isn't going to loiter at low altitude, it will do ASW from medium altitudes. Whether this will work, may be up for debate but I'm thinking the USN don't have an issue, and they should know I'd be wary of NZ purchasing something like the P-1 from a country who have never exported military equipment before and has no experience in how to support it. The P-1 is an orphan, I'd be surprised if was cheaper and more effective than a P-8. My personal view is that the RNZAF needs P-8 to replace P-3K. It's so much more than a ASW platform. And with the NZ EEZ as large as it is I'd suggest we should invest in the top tier capability.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Jun 22, 2016 19:58:18 GMT 12
Has someone actually got mission profiles for the P8 verse the other options, having only lightly followed the search for MH370 that the P8 suffered from limited time on station. It appears that if the P8 is operated at low level on station (for any reason) fuel burn is a real issue. The four engines on the P1 is likely to give it a very real fuel burn advantage over the P8 while on station.
There are plenty of Kawasaki orphans on the NZ reg. Just because Boeing is building lots of P8s don't expect much financial benefit for flow through, it is unlikely the Boeing Defense operates much differently than Boeing COMMERCIAL Airplanes and they screw every last cent out of all its operators, tell Boeing your aircraft is now a freighter thats 50K extra before they will release the standard tech pubs updates, you get better faster support from Boeing for repair if you have in-house people who can approve that data instead of them and so & so.
yes there are 6000 or so 737NG's but parts from these can only go one way, civilian to military, so things like core swaps don't work. There will also lots of avionics and structural differences between the early air-frames and the latter aircraft before getting to the P8 changes (Max's are different again). That's not to discount the effect of such a large pool, but its not as simple as thinking that there is 6000 users with identical aircraft (one wonders if so of the issues with the 757's that there is very few of these being parted out and they are all getting old, so there could be quite a pinch on spares
The P1 does appear to be more capable than the P8, but may cost slightly more but then we are likely to get more from the jap's than the yanks for buy their kit.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Jun 23, 2016 14:54:19 GMT 12
The P1 does appear to be more capable than the P8, but may cost slightly more but then we are likely to get more from the jap's than the yanks for buy their kit. What do you base that on? It didn't even get a look in in the UK. Being part of a fleet with hundreds (and I'm only talking P-8's not 737's) of airframes as possed to fleet with 10's will definitely result in cheaper support costs.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Jun 24, 2016 10:04:17 GMT 12
The P1 is a custom designed airframe for the mission, while the P8 airframe has impacted the mission profile dictating the mission avionics. you can operate the P1 on a similar profile to a P8, but can't operate the P1 profile with the p8 without a tanker or finishing the day with a bit of boating. No avionics or airframe upgrade is going to allow the P8 to get down low for long.
The mission profile issues with the P8, makes one wonder how well it would perform tasks like post cyclone inspection of the islands, or liferaft drops that require multi passes etc. Then there is the 737 & runway FOD issues if it has to operate out of somewhere remote.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Jun 27, 2016 14:43:44 GMT 12
The P1 is a custom designed airframe for the mission, while the P8 airframe has impacted the mission profile dictating the mission avionics. you can operate the P1 on a similar profile to a P8, but can't operate the P1 profile with the p8 without a tanker or finishing the day with a bit of boating. No avionics or airframe upgrade is going to allow the P8 to get down low for long. None of that makes the P-8 less effective than the P-1. There seems to be a thought process that ASW have to operate as they have always done, at low altitude. Clearly, that's not what the P-8 is going to do. Hence the avionics BTW from what I've read combat radius and ferry range for both aircraft are similar. For me the big thing is there is going to be around 200 P-8's in the world, which have some commonality with one of the most (if not the most) successful airliner in history. And the P-8 is being supported by a massive organisation used to supporting foreign customers. Whereas the 33 P-1's have been built for a specific customer by a country who have never exported military equipment before. Plus it's got 4 engines so (not quite) 4 x the engine support costs. Considering whatever aircraft is bought , it will be around in RNZAF service for 40+ yrs I know which aircraft I'd go with. The mission profile issues with the P8, makes one wonder how well it would perform tasks like post cyclone inspection of the islands, or liferaft drops that require multi passes etc. The P-8 is an ASW/ASuW aircraft. If the RNZAF wants an ASW/ASuW aircraft those other roles, whilst a consideration should never drive the requirements. Then there is the 737 & runway FOD issues if it has to operate out of somewhere remote. And we know the P-1 doesn't have similar issues how? It's 4 engines are low slung and it's got similar, if not longer wingspan.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 17, 2016 9:30:55 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by oj on Aug 17, 2016 21:02:57 GMT 12
"The Government has approved a $1.7 billion project to upgrade defence buildings across the country, including a health and wellbeing precinct at Whenuapai and a mounting base at Waiouru."
So what is the "mounting base" for at Waiouru? A replica cannon or something?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 17, 2016 21:08:09 GMT 12
I was wondering what a mounting base was too. Considering most of the units at Waiouru are soon to move south, this is puzzling.
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Aug 18, 2016 6:20:52 GMT 12
As units move out of Waiouru I understand the plan is to demolish all the spread out buildings some dating back to early WWII, and build a consolidated facility which will provide the infrastructure for units (including overseas forces) to occupy as a base for training - vehicle stables, barracks, storehouse, admin etc.
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Aug 18, 2016 7:53:35 GMT 12
I was wondering what a mounting base was too. Considering most of the units at Waiouru are soon to move south, this is puzzling. It's essentially a base for pre-deployment and major exercise training with enough room to bring together sub units units with their support elements and hq, work up and get ready to deploy. T SaveSave
|
|
|
Post by Mustang51 on Aug 26, 2016 9:35:44 GMT 12
Me thinks that despite all efforts to the contrary, sometime in the not too distant future there shall be a flashpoint conflict with China and it shall reverberate for many years even though it may not be a large scale conflict. Increase in economic zones, expanding influence through south east asia, increasing military budgets and substantial increases in military technology and firepower (carriers)..........Sound anything like another Asian country in the 1930s?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 26, 2016 12:28:43 GMT 12
China does not need to go to war to take over New Zealand, Labour and National have given the country away to them.
|
|