|
Post by snafu on Dec 29, 2018 17:18:16 GMT 12
If you are suggesting a single P8 requires a 29.5 tonne facility to be deployed to support just its tactical planning, data interoperation etc then we have been sold a lemon. How heavy is the equivalent P-3 support requirement - 0.5 tonne? MTOC-1 mission configurations range from a 3,000-pound pallet of gear to full expeditionary mode - including tents, generators, air conditioners, antennas and equipment - that weigh in at more than 60,000 pounds.
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Dec 29, 2018 17:35:36 GMT 12
my main concern is numbers thereof! My sentiments exactly, I am not against A400M I’d actually like an entire fleet of them. it’s just cost and risk that I just don’t think NZ should be exposed to it when the 80% solution is available to give greater coverage.
|
|
|
Post by machina on Dec 29, 2018 19:13:19 GMT 12
Yep sounds good in theory but you would have to build the infrastructure to deal with cyclonic conditions, one only has to look at aftermath of the recent hurricanes in the US and damage done to USAF fighters. A modest but adequate port with an airfield close by built for such conditions isn't impossible though, and on top of the aid requirements I wonder if this sort of thing becomes more necessary in countering growing Chinese influence/presence. However I doubt the political will exists for any sort of expansion.
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Dec 29, 2018 20:12:03 GMT 12
If you are suggesting a single P8 requires a 29.5 tonne facility to be deployed to support just its tactical planning, data interoperation etc then we have been sold a lemon. How heavy is the equivalent P-3 support requirement - 0.5 tonne? MTOC-1 mission configurations range from a 3,000-pound pallet of gear to full expeditionary mode - including tents, generators, air conditioners, antennas and equipment - that weigh in at more than 60,000 pounds. I hope they can carry the pallet themselves? After the fuel tanks, bomb bay, and whatever else they have put where the cargo containers go on a B737.
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Dec 29, 2018 20:21:10 GMT 12
..just hook up a trailer...
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Dec 29, 2018 20:25:00 GMT 12
I wonder who they have in mind for this range increase for the C130-30. www.janes.com/article/83000/afa-2018-lockheed-martin-targets-c-130j-30-wing-fuel-increaseTankers are just a sign we got the wrong aircraft, One shouldn't forget that tanker gas is REALLY expensive (best counted in many multiplies of standard price) and really only makes sense where you occasionally operate at very long ranges which isn't the case here. There is a lot to gained from operating a B757 replacement on the ZK reg, but as for "Fee for capability" the auditors don't seem to have many nice things to say about the UK experience, one shouldn't forget that we only speak English because Sir Drake decided not to maximise shareholder profit on that day in the English channel.
|
|
|
Post by machina on Dec 29, 2018 21:13:34 GMT 12
Tankers are just a sign we got the wrong aircraft, One shouldn't forget that tanker gas is REALLY expensive (best counted in many multiplies of standard price) and really only makes sense where you occasionally operate at very long ranges which isn't the case here. Would Antarctica be considered somewhere where that kind of range/support might be needed in case a transporter couldn't land and needed to return to NZ? We're not getting C-17s which I understand don't have that problem but what about the A400 of it is an option?
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Dec 29, 2018 21:20:52 GMT 12
If it’s a retrofit to existing aircraft I’d imagine a number of countries would be Interested Tankers are just a sign we got the wrong aircraft, One shouldn't forget that tanker gas is REALLY expensive (best counted in many multiplies of standard price) and really only makes sense where you occasionally operate at very long ranges which isn't the case here. What tosh is a force multiplier, in NZ case it gives endurance to the aircraft or gives the ability to land somewhere where infrastructure might be damaged, you can use the aircraft to its fullest capability and return. It’s not just about going from A-B
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Dec 29, 2018 21:28:52 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Dec 30, 2018 7:49:44 GMT 12
It's not going to result in much of a range increase. Without performance charts I'd guess it would add maybe half an hour of cruse at altitude, and unless there is an increase in MTOW that isn't going to help much. That isn't to say it wouldn't be useful to some operators, especially those wanting to move people around a larger theatre (i.e the Pacific). There's no doubt the newer versions of the J would be useful. But people shouldn't kid themselves, it's still an old airframe, the payload and range aren't that great and the avionics aren't much (if any) improvement over the RNZAF's LEP Hercs. A one for one replacement would result in a lot more day to day availability over the current fleet. Four aircraft would deliver more than 5 legacy Hercs can (remembering that for 12 years of the last 13 at least one of the five H Hercs was in the life extension program, and at any given time at least one undergoing Phase and one in Group half the time). Having a MSG-3 design would be a huge improvement for availability rates.
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Dec 30, 2018 8:15:40 GMT 12
The more fuel you carry the less payload you can carry... unless they upgrade the engines or wing design to create more lift...
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Dec 30, 2018 13:50:27 GMT 12
The more fuel you carry the less payload you can carry... unless they upgrade the engines or wing design to create more lift... Well yes true on paper but each mission sortie is different (payload; weather; distance; alternate airfields etc) so I think the way to view extra fuel on the C130J is to merely consider it as an extra 'option' available to flight planners that may or may not be of use depending on all those variables considered in flight planning. If you have a smallish load that extra fuel could be a bonus.
|
|
|
Post by fiftythree on Dec 30, 2018 20:13:34 GMT 12
I reckon HC-130J is a strong contender.
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Dec 30, 2018 20:21:21 GMT 12
Don't our current C-130H's have wing fuel pods?
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Dec 30, 2018 20:46:10 GMT 12
Yes. They are optional for base-model J's, and always on various other versions like MC-130J and HC-130J. Even if delivered without the pylons I think they are still plumbed for them, as the Aussies have fitted a couple of theirs with external wrong yanks will wing tanks well after delivery, as noted above.
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Dec 30, 2018 21:30:31 GMT 12
Yes. They are optional for base-model J's, and always on various other versions like MC-130J and HC-130J. Even if delivered without the pylons I think they are still plumbed for them, as the Aussies have fitted a couple of theirs with external wrong yanks will after delivery, as noted above. Plumbing's an interesting thing. The wings are plumbed for them regardless, and have a -1760 databus fitted. Which means that can carry and drop most things, proving the usual separation tests are done. For the KC versions, at the build stage the plumbing is beefed up to allow for higher flow rates. The Hercs that don't carry the factory-fitted plumbing can be converted to KC versions easily, but they don't achieve the same flow rates without a serious amount of re-work to the fuel system.
|
|
|
Post by machina on Jan 1, 2019 8:08:00 GMT 12
Happy New Year everyone.
Going through the combat force restoration thread, I read that when East Timor happened our 5 Hercs and 2 727s were flat out and the RNZAF was stretched right to the edge of its capability just getting the army into theatre. This is apparently why 75 squadron was left in the lurch. If that was the case back then, how badly would the NZDF be caught short if something similar was to happen now with our larger LAVs etc and we went for 1 for 1 with J model Hercs?
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Jan 1, 2019 9:30:12 GMT 12
Happy New Year everyone. Going through the combat force restoration thread, I read that when East Timor happened our 5 Hercs and 2 727s were flat out and the RNZAF was stretched right to the edge of its capability just getting the army into theatre. This is apparently why 75 squadron was left in the lurch. If that was the case back then, how badly would the NZDF be caught short if something similar was to happen now with our larger LAVs etc and we went for 1 for 1 with J model Hercs? That assumes we have the same level of personal to deploy, it appears unlikely that we do (interesting analysis for the current levels of the reserves unclas.com/2018/11/20/is-your-reserve-big-enough/).
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Jan 1, 2019 12:24:21 GMT 12
Happy New Year everyone. Going through the combat force restoration thread, I read that when East Timor happened our 5 Hercs and 2 727s were flat out and the RNZAF was stretched right to the edge of its capability just getting the army into theatre. This is apparently why 75 squadron was left in the lurch. If that was the case back then, how badly would the NZDF be caught short if something similar was to happen now with our larger LAVs etc and we went for 1 for 1 with J model Hercs? That's considering that NZ contribution an Army Battalion Group of 830 personnel, including two infantry Companies and a surveillance and reconnaissance Company, along with engineer, logistics and medical elements, plus a Air Force element of 130 personnel
The NZDF also used civilian resources to transport a large amount of heavy equipment and stores to East Timor. NZG chartered one aircraft and two vessels within a limited time, so its hard to be precise on what was actually chartered by NZG
Anyone know?
|
|
|
Post by exkiwiforces on Jan 1, 2019 20:17:59 GMT 12
If you are suggesting a single P8 requires a 29.5 tonne facility to be deployed to support just its tactical planning, data interoperation etc then we have been sold a lemon. How heavy is the equivalent P-3 support requirement - 0.5 tonne? Should put in for a Service Transfer for Forces Protection Officer Paul? If you hate the traveling with Green Machine atm? Then you will hate this job even more, but looking the bright side Paul, there will no more sleeping under the stars now as the Airforce goes by the stars of the hotel or motel now. 😂 The Force Protection foot print for one deployed P8 is between 30-40 personnel and that’s before we throw in a couple of BAMS UAVs as well. So Ladies and Gents, welcome to the world of Network Centic Warfare folks and watch the NZDF budget disappear quicker than a Australia Test Cricket Team bating collapse.
|
|