|
Post by horicle on Dec 1, 2017 15:01:59 GMT 12
The T-6 Texan II uses the OBOGS oxygen generating system. If ours are standard T-6's it will be the RNZAF's first use of OBOGS. The On Board Oxygen Generating System uses micro filter properties that separate the oxygen from the nitrogen in the bleed air taken from the engines compressor. The nitrogen and any lighter molecules are dumped overboard. The oxygen and any heavier molecules go into the aircrew oxy system at 50+psi. Dead simple but this was the cause of groundings to both the F-22 and F-35 at different times. Currently resolved but I don't know what actually happened. Now it is the Texan's turn. Makes me wonder. Incidentally to make OBOGS acceptable the contamination limits for breathing oxygen had to be re-written. You won't find that in those words anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Dec 1, 2017 12:26:49 GMT 12
I see the new government has looked in the cupboard and not found the $20B. Nothing new there but what worried me was another input that quoted the last Government was keen on the P-8. That worries me more. If we buy that clapped out heap of superior technology it will cost us too much.
What nobody mentions is the MQ-4C Triton that seems to have to go with it. OK, it may only complement the P-8 fleet but it seems universally needed. The U.S. Navy plans a fleet of 68 MQ-4Cs (Triton) and 117 P-8As to replace the ageing P-3C Orion force. The RAAF is buying seven MQ-4C’s to supplement its fleet of P-8’s. India is negotiating a Triton buy (that can take a long time). Northrop Grumman is expecting to sell the Triton to both UK and Norway. With our proposed four P-8’s the ratios above give a need for three Tritons to have an equally effective maritime fleet. Did you know the first three Tritons for the USN including all operationally necessary system components, such as e.g. ground station, cost US$648 million.
As for the ‘clapped out’ accusation. You probably won’t remember that when Boeing went up against Lockheed’s P-7 (which incidentaly was an LRAACA - Long-Range Air ASW-Capable Aircraft) to replace the P-3 in the early 1990’s they used the 757 as the airframe of choice to fit the role gear into. Move on in time and when 12-15 years later the P-3 had to be replaced in a short time frame the 757 was no longer in production. So an airframe at the end of its development life had to be used instead. The 737 can’t take any larger engines, there is no space between the wings and the ground. It can’t take any more (or larger) main wheels without a serious centre section redesign. I think, from checking B737 tyre sizes, the main wheels have gone from 40 inch rims to 44 inch (H44.5x16.5-21) while the max t/o weight has gone from 50,000Kg to 85,200Kg but there are still only two pair of main wheels). It is selling because it has a captive market. USA bought it because they backed themselves into a corner when the P-3 fleet started running out of hours due to heavy tasking in the war against terror where it became a viable platform for overland surveillance as well as its traditional role which was fully occupying it in the Gulf waters. This may have helped in leading to the MMA concept. To get some input as to why the 757 was preferred Google - A Boeing pilot reveals why the 737 can't replace the 757.
The interesting question to ask our current operators is, how would a 757 fit our maritime requirements? Not a silly question.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Nov 30, 2017 13:57:56 GMT 12
I am intrigued. Just been searching the on-line media to see what the visiting Kawasaki C-2 has been doing. It must be a stealth airlifter because it seems to be invisible. Something not mentioned in the brochures. Unfortunately just a sign of how relevant things that interest us are to the what passes for the media. Where is it now? Please tell me I just failed to find the story.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Nov 29, 2017 21:50:15 GMT 12
ON the subject of the plug in VIP suit. Didn't we do something like that so Princess Anne could tour the islands in a Herc. It was definitely pre digital so I think the 'windows' were missing.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Nov 28, 2017 12:16:29 GMT 12
Everybody but me saw the C-2 overfly Feilding yesterday afternoon about 1400hrs. It was so quiet and I was indoors.
Will it replace our 757’s in the strategic/heavy role? Surely must, but the crap on the internet is so confusing. I read one commentator (UK A400 lover) quote it is not for us because it has no tactical capability. Did not want to believe that so I went through the available Kawasaki data and found “The XC-2 has been designed to take-off and land on unprepared airstrips or short runways such as grass, snow and mud.”
But then in a Flight Global website I found a statement attributed to an un-named Kawasaki rep “The airlifter can handle takeoffs and landings from short runways, but Tokyo did not require that it to be capable of use from rough fields, he says.”
It is still a good 757 replacement. Just a bit undignified in the VIP role. But look at the airfields it could use. To me the undercarriage layout is very ‘high flotation’, just what you need for grass, snow and mud. Maybe They (Tokyo) just haven’t qualified it for this role?
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Nov 12, 2017 14:53:24 GMT 12
Continuing the theme of P-3’s on three engines.
It was at Denpasar (Bali Ngurah Rai International Airport) on the Vanguard deployment of September 1972 according to my passport. When the P-3 started up for the Denpasar - Tengah leg there was a chip detector light on one of the engines so everything was shut down. That meant nobody left. The P-3 captain worked out that a three engine take-off was within limits and the impress Officer heaved a sigh of relief and eight Skyhawk pilots and a C-130 full of maintainers cursed their luck. I am still trying to find the photo (colour slide) I took from my end of the runway. But all eight aircraft duly departed, just a little late.
There is a foot note given to me over a few beers. When the P-3 got to Tengah it was given a straight in approach. A few miles before threshold the controller told the captain there was a wind change and he now had a three knot tailwind on that vector, was he happy with that?. The reply was “affirmative, and for your info we are landing on three engines”. The ever polite Controller responded with “Do you wish to declare an emergency?”
All the Captain is reported as saying was “Negative. We took off like this”.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on May 29, 2017 16:55:51 GMT 12
I have two points to cover in this post.
The first covers the three choices or different paths our Politicians can take in updating our MPA fleet.
1. We go for a fully capable platform with the ability to cover all the current tasks you can think of. It’s P-1 or P-8. Both are currently entering service. The production runs for each are currently 93 and 160.
2. We accept one of the smaller jet based platforms which have the speed and range now seen as important to the task and, subject to equipment fit (in the space available), can match some of the capabilities of 1. I note that with the continuing improvement and miniaturisation of electronics some of this group could migrate to 1. However most are paper planes for this task and in my opinion they are not there yet.
3. We opt for one of the smaller twin prop MPA’s currently on the market. This moves our capability down the ladder into the SAR/Coastguard area. Subject to equipment fit the only disadvantage may be range and time to get there. Such aircraft could be a part of the overall plan if they become the back-up to a smaller number of aircraft from 1.
At this time options 2. and 3. are not in keeping with our current capabilities and geographic responsibilities. I can’t dismiss them because in the end it is politics and Politicians that will decide the outcome. Also there is an election in September.
My second point covers how the two main contenders got on to the selection list.
The more complicated story comes from the American side.
In the mid 1980’s the P-3C was a mature aircraft having got to upgrade III and the USN began the exercise of determining a replacement. Two paper contenders made it to the short list and in Oct 1988 Lockheed’s was the chosen plane, to be designated P-7. When it was tabled as a ready to go proposition it failed on cost and the programme was cancelled in late 1990. The number two proposal was Boeing’s MPA based on a 757 airframe (see a connection). Number three was a version of McDonnell Douglas’ MD-90. At this point the P-3 replacement exercise went on the back burner for 10 or 12 years and Orion upgrade IV happened. The next step was the MMA (Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft) to be designated P-8. The P-8 had to happen within budget. That is why nobody on its side of the fence will say it is the wrong way to do the task, failure was not an option. The P-8 was selected June 2004 from competition with the Orion 21 (a new build P-3, perhaps hindsight will show that a P-3J would not have been a silly idea) and BAe’s Nimrod MRA4 (later cancelled) which was withdrawn when no USA partnership company could be found. The P-8 progressed into production virtually unopposed. It was planned to start replacing P-3C’s from 2013. It is two years late. Currently P-8 production is planned to be 160 plus any after orders by UK or USN and of course any new orders. Production is currently at a rate of 18 p/yr (up from 12). with 33 (or 36?) delivered there is about seven years of production left. This could change any time. Checking the website with the P-8 for Norway quotes “we are in the last three years of P-8 production” (see the link in chris73’s post Nov 28 2016). That could be for placing orders. The Australians seem to think they will get the last of their extended order into service in the late 2020’s (beagle’s post of the same day). Currently my best bet is done by 2022 which means close off for long lead items earlier than that. What is the full story?
Kawasaki and Japan have been in the serious MPA game longer than most people realise.
Kawasaki began manufacturing P-2 Neptunes in 1958 cumulating in the P-2J of 1966 with 82 built. Japan made such a success of the Neptune that they did not venture into the Orion world until after the P-3C arrived. In fact the first Kawasaki built P-3C was delivered in May 1982 and 107 construction numbers exist for them. The last one was delivered 1/2/200 and there are currently 87 in use. It is a young fleet. Nine have been written off and at least 5 c/n’s are re-cycles, the missing ones are waiting heavy repair. When it comes to P-3’s and maritime ops the Japanese probably know their onions. Particularly because of the neighbours they have. Even while Kawasaki production of P-3C’s was continuing Japan followed the demise of the P-7 project and decided they would have to provide their own P-3 successor. The development of the P-1 concept occurred during 2001-2005 and first flight was on 28 Sep 2007. In 2004 Japan and USA discussed the MPA situation and Japan decided to continue with its own concept. When a new airframe and a new engine go into a first prototype you can expect difficulties but the P-1 has made it. (Like Supermarine’s type 300 and Rolls Royce’s PV12, but I digress). It is two years late and current production is 93 for Japan at a low level production rate of about five per year. I have no details of any ramp-up. It is no orphan, a lot of them will be around for a long time but I have no reference for when production might end. The real problem for Japan is how to break into the Arms Export business, that may decide the issue. Interestingly Kawasaki’s production rates over all the MPA’s has been only five or six a year. They really need some outside assistance. Are we putting our hands up?
Questions. There will always be questions.
1. I would like to know what observations 5 Sqn personnel made of the P-1’s that were parked on their patch during the RNZN Anniversary. Like jimtheeagle’s post of Jan14 2017 about engine use.
2. How big are the alternators on the engines of the twin engine contenders. MPA need a lot of Kilowatts.
3. If the P-3C spares crunch is real will it affect the New Zealand defence spending plan that goes out to 2030 and is budgeted for $20b capital investment during that time. Currently I see the transport element replacement planned in early 2020’s (all C-130 upgrades are done and the fleet as good as it will get). For the maritime element the 2014 RNZAF plan called for sat/com upgrade during 2014/17. Then an underwater intel/recon upgrade to be completed by 2020. That surely means P-3 replacement later in the 2020’s. If P-3 availability becomes questionable this corrupts the critical path in the current replacement project.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on May 20, 2017 17:28:26 GMT 12
P-1 V’s P-8, its gone to bed but it won’t sleep.
The requirement for a replacement MPA for the RNZAF has no perfect line for line comparison with the major countries that have opted for the P-8.
None of the three main P-8 buyers have the same SAR need as us. The USA has the Coast Guard, the RAAF has the AMSA (Australian Maritime Safety Authority) and the UK has Her Majesty’s Coastguard which contracts to Bristow Helicopters (1.6 billion Pounds per Year starting in 2015) to provide the necessary costal SAR. Just how far out they go I don’t know.
In New Zealand’s case how many years have we been talking about setting up a ‘short’ range SAR/Maritime service. Some times it is to be a new RNZAF unit and sometimes a civil/coastguard style operation. Needless to say it has never got the accountants interest. With the financial burden of replacing the P-3 and C-130 fleets in a short time window the addition of a smaller (perhaps common maritime/transport) aircraft could mean a reduction in the main buy. It gets complicated.
To do SAR and serious Maritime Patrol I put my money on the ‘Jet Orion” (yes, it’s got four engines).
None of the three main P-8 buyers have the same Civil Assistance role as we do. When disaster strikes our Island neighbours we need to get there quickly (any jet will do) and it is always a good idea to pick up the local Ratu/dissaster co-ordinator and do the aerial inspection. Being able to do this depends a lot on how much runway you need.
Guess where my money is going.
The argument that the P-8 is a more suitable ‘serious’ MPA than the P-1 gets a bit of traction because of the RAF selection. I think the differences here are too small to be a decision watershed and we can only hope we never need to find out. But it does lead to the commonality statement. I think some are confusing the term. To me it is more about using our equipment and tactics in a common task with others equipment and tactics. Like we did with the A-4 fleet. The maritime situation is no different. Fincastle was P-3’s, Nimrods and Aurora’s (historically even Sunderlands (1964, we won), Shackletons, Neptunes and Argus’s). For commonality/inter-operatability you don’t need the same fleet/equipment. In fact different equipment can often give a better outcome.
All I am trying to do is set the scene for the inevitable announcement. Due to the new world trade situation (thanks to the Donald) NZ is moving closer to Japan. The just completed trade visit to Japan by the PM shows how serious we are taking the TPP situation. Just what our government will do to gain better terms for our food produce imports into Japan is going to be a factor in any purchases we make. The proposals made by the recent Sept 2016 visit by the Japanese regarding the KHI contenders were only a start. Noted the US of A has approved the sale of four P-8’s. Just an administrative step, and if we decided to get five (or three, say the price just went up) the whole process would have to start all over again.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Apr 26, 2017 15:56:31 GMT 12
The driver for the Transport Replacement Aircraft may become the ability to get an NH90 to where it is needed in a real hurry. I don't mean three days by ship to a nearby pacific island.
Initially the defence review that started all this or the project plan that arose from it stated the intention to replace "like with like". If this is followed slavishly we get the C-130J. But the NH90 won't fit, will it? Now we get to Q+A on Sunday 23rd and I quote the just departed Minster of Defence "Air Transport of NH90 is lacking and that's part of the future plan".
This limits the options if it is followed. C-130J would be out, and probably C390 as it has a cargo hold designed to be a C-130 replacement. Based on what I currently understand only A400 and C-2 are in the market. And one of them can cruise the airways at M0.8, if you can't, you have to fly lower than ideal.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Mar 5, 2017 16:29:42 GMT 12
Possibly I knew the same Rodney Williams in the 1950's. Then he was the teacher at Five Forks school, Co of 26 Sqn ATC in Oamaru and the guy who sat in the back seat of North Otago's Bergfalk II on my first glider flight.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Jan 22, 2017 15:10:41 GMT 12
During the early days of Kahu Northrop tried to sell the F-20 to us and brought to NZ a mockup of the cockpit along with all the sales kit which they set up at Air Movements in Wellington. It was never a serious contender because we don't become the first customer for anything (think zero stage compressor if you need to know why). As a design exercise at the end of Lee Begin's line of lightweight fighters it was a good aircraft that got it all together (it first flew as the F-5G). It just did not fit into the USAF's fighter requirements and with no home backing it had to join the long list of great aircraft that nobody wanted. All I got out of it was a tiepin, long gone.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Jan 15, 2017 15:05:18 GMT 12
So if a Japanese group of Government and Industry people came here and did not talk to Defence they must have talked to Government. They did not come here for a holiday. Is that good or bad? My heart says go for the C-2 P-1 as I want a jet Orion, not a passenger plane full of electronics. Could we get a 5/5/5 deal like 5 P-1s and 5 C-2s leased for 5 years with the right to purchase after that. Japan really wants to get into the export market and we might need to be first to get the best deal.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Oct 13, 2016 14:38:47 GMT 12
RE cargo pods for the A-4. There was a converted drop tank that was used to carry a full Lox Converter. No knowledge of it being used but with servicings at Wb it could have been handy to have. Also there was the chilling of beer cans in the (5inch?) rocket pods. Now thats a cargo.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Sept 28, 2016 13:21:07 GMT 12
Now I see, Quote USAF “The designation B-21 recognizes the LRS-B as the first bomber of the 21st century,” Does this mean we will have to wait 84+ years for the B-22. I think they have backed themselves into another corner.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Sept 22, 2016 12:29:09 GMT 12
I see on the DID website that the USAF has chosen Raider as the official name for the new Northrop B-2 lookalike bomber. This raises a few interesting points.
Already some US commentators have noted a certain insensitivity to the USA's principal Asian ally when the naming panel cited the name as a tribute to Doolittle and his 'Raiders'.
What about poor old Sikorsky who have their new S-97 Raider under development. I always thought the Yanks were very clued up about getting the copyright on everything they did, had, or got.
Should this aircraft be the Raider II as Northrop sold a C-125A Raider to the USAF (first flew on 21st Dec 1946 as the Northrop N-23 Pioneer). Special note, when checking to see if any Raider thread existed I discovered Bruce had identified this Raider as one of the Worlds ugly aircraft back in 2005.
I think the naming panel were a bit short on Military History and Aviation History. I would have just called it "Fortress". Phone rings. "Boeing Lawyers here" Maybe it is hard to find an original name for a new type. Wife tells me to stop talking to myself.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on May 25, 2016 17:12:14 GMT 12
The gender problem is recent and one of our own making. Historically we had Soldiers (from Anglo-French back to Medieval Latin Soldaris, ‘one having pay’) and Sailors which seems to have originated from the 14th century “Sailer”. Today these terms are considered gender neutral but they never were. Then came the 20th century, mechanisation and aviation. The blokes who played with aircraft were “Airmen” as gender un-neutral as you can get. Also the Army and Navy created a lot of job titles that had ‘man’ in them. Now as the 21st century gets up to speed we have to de-gender all those titles we are stuck with. You have to laugh, its no good getting upset, it spoils the beer.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on May 1, 2016 17:20:16 GMT 12
From Chris73, does that mean our Mk46's can be upgraded?
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Apr 19, 2016 16:26:26 GMT 12
For the record: The ATC glider at Ohakea in the early 70's would be Slingsby T-53 ZK-GFW which was allocated to the ATC Central District. I flew it at OH from 25th April 69 (it had been operational for a few months then) until the 1st Aug 1971. It was written off after a stall/spin on final turn during August or September. It had the ATC stylised roundal on the fuselage sides with (I think) a blue cheat line.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Jan 26, 2016 10:58:23 GMT 12
Back to the Maritime Herk. I remember AVM Morrison addressing Base Woodbourne in 1962 or 63. Could have been his introductory visit as CAF after he took over. He specifficaly mentioned looking at using the Herc for both Maritime and Transport roles. When the Orion buy entered the arena we were lead to believe Lockheed convinced the Air Force that 'Maritiming' the Herc would be detrimental to the aircrafts life (and Lockheed's bank balance?).
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Aug 24, 2015 14:17:43 GMT 12
Is it the camera angle or me? The Hunter seemed to roll as it passed through the vertical on the way up. Too late for a barrel roll and too early for a half loop and roll off the top. Do air show participants have to lodge a copy of their routine with the organisers?
|
|