jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on May 23, 2017 18:08:48 GMT 12
The big problem with the P8 is that only two NZ runways are long enough to operate it effectively- Christchurch and Mangere. The Aussies are extending Edinburgh and Townsville to 2800 metres. They are not doing so for fun. You will lose something like 4 tonne of fuel and/or payload out of Ohakea and 8.0 tonne out of Whenuapai with their current runways. Not much point buying these if they cannot carry their payload far enough to do a mission? Of course you could buy the aircraft and once delivered ring up the PM and say we need another 800 metres of runway at Whenuapai now please! $500 million should do it! The other issue is of course price. The P1 should be much cheaper than the P8 which means you can either buy more or save the cash for a rainy day or operating costs. Even the P1 will probably be affected by runway length although detail is hard to come by.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on May 5, 2017 10:43:29 GMT 12
Isn't Ohakea a backup for A380? I'm not completely up to speed with aircraft ops, but surely a fully laden P8 needs less runway requirements than a A380, even with a light load? If not isn't that an extremely poor design? Yes getting said headache...... Light reading for runway requirements www.airbus.com/support-services/airport-operations/aircraft-characteristics/www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/plan_manuals.pageThere is no data for the P8 but the Boeing 737-900 ER is a close match at 85 MTOW Look for the 27000 Lb thrust engines You need to consider dry and wet runway performance since fine days are not mandatory Luckily airport altitude can be generally discounted because that can get confusing You will also see temperature can still have an effect Enjoy!
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on May 5, 2017 9:40:23 GMT 12
From the article above The Antonov AN 124-100 is one of the top four largest modern aircraft of the world with a wingspan 8m wider than a B747-400, but only 1m shorter in overall length. Its maximum takeoff weight is 392 tonnes while maximum landing weight is 330 tonnes. These high operating weights could not be supported by our runway, taxiway and apron pavement surfaces without damaging them, so a limit of 280 tonnes maximum was placed on the aircraft operating into Ohakea. Max allowable weight 280 tonnes Wingspan 73.3m Length 69.1m Turning radius 55m Operator; Ruslan Two crews of 6 aircrew, plus 2 loadmasters (all Russian) The big Antonov was chartered by NHI Industries and picked up the two helicopters in France. The weight restriction placed on the Antonov to protect our runway, taxiway and apron surfaces meant the aircraft had to arrive light after flying in from Jakarta (10hrs duration) and had to depart light and transit via Auckland International Airport—to take on more fuel—prior to flying to Hawaii. The Antonov was like the C130 designed to get into "short" runways but in this case short is 2500 metres. The P8 will require 2800 metres plus to operate with a full load. The Ohakea runway length was not a problem for this aircraft. It will be for the P8. Possibly it seems complicated because you have two separate issues length and strength? Just consider them one at a time. Also remember the Antonov was designed for Russian military use as a super large C130 and the P8 is a reworked 737 which was originally designed to carry civilian passengers off the many long runways in the US. The 737 is of course subject to load restrictions out of runways at Queenstown and Wellington as well.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on May 4, 2017 23:55:52 GMT 12
If you are looking at costs for the P8 do not forget you need runway extensions if you want to operate out of Whenuapai or Ohakea, otherwise you need to cut back range, endurance or payload. The only runways capable of handing the Poseidon at full load are Christchurch and Mangere which may be problematic at Mangere particularly. Needless to say extensions do not come cheap.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on May 3, 2017 22:29:19 GMT 12
The last I heard the plan was for a 1200 metre runway in 5-10 years time which would then be extended to 2150 metres by 2040. The original plan was for 3000 metres but this was dropped. A new terminal is planned between the two runways.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on May 3, 2017 16:31:06 GMT 12
There is a small problem in that neither Whenuapai nor Ohakea can operate the P8 at MTOW. You would need to extend Whenuapai by 800 metres and Ohakea by 400 metres to do this. Put simply you would need to leave fuel and/or payload behind if you operate off these runways. In the case of Whenuapai you would also need to strengthen the runway and taxiways. The Australians are spending 350 million plus doing this for their new base at Edinburgh (Adelaide) which has a runway longer than Ohakea (2560 M) to start with.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on May 2, 2017 11:26:10 GMT 12
I thought the reason that Whenuapai was never extended any further was because it was built on a Kauri swamp and it would cost too much to excavate and fill? When it was being regularly used by large (for the day) airliners it used to take a pounding.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on May 1, 2017 19:54:18 GMT 12
Everyone is going on regards the length of runway it requires to SAFELY take off at FULL WEIGHT. My thoughts are now what about the landing distance at minimal weight and a very crew trying to get a retired P3K2 into whats left of defence force property at Wigram as a museum item. It won't happen for a P-3 (landing at what is left of Wigram) but it would be possible (just) for a fully striped out C-130. But whether the powers that be would approve a landing is a different matter. More likely both types will land at Harewood, be dismantled and trucked to Wigram. That is assuming we are allowed to keep one of each for our Museum and they don't try and flog them all off! Landing distance for both C130 and P3C from 50 feet both about 830 M according to my trusty Janes 1988 edition. Older (lighter) P3's used about 600 M from 50 feet.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Apr 30, 2017 23:04:20 GMT 12
I have seen them at Hamilton and sort of remember a photo at Greymouth but I am getting old so that may just be memory. You can operate them off a 1200 M runway (Janes 1965-1988). Try that with a P8!
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Apr 30, 2017 14:20:04 GMT 12
I agree with all that. Additionally, active sonar buoys can be used for an overt search by the MPA if required - not just passive detection of the sub's signature or sonar. However, it's the same detection problem for every future maritime patrol aircraft and it's the same problem set as currently faced by the P3. The P8 carries the same sonobuoys as the P3, but has twice as many. The designers understand the problem! The P8 is a different beast in terms of a preference for medium/high altitude search, but if the RNZAF purchase it they'll have the benefit of a doctrine refined by the USN, RAAF and RAF. Who wants to be smashing around at low level for extended periods in the weather and turbulence anyway? Let the radar, IRDS and eyeballs do the work from where the visible horizon is better, then drop down to low level to rig the contact, and then loiter back at high level to coordinate the rescue. According the marketing blurb, "the aircraft has same range and loiter time as its predecessor - 1,200nm with four hours of loiter - but the P-8's higher cruising speed enables it to transit the distance in 1.5 hours instead of 2.5, which allows the orbit to be maintained with two P-8s instead of three." Food for thought. The approaches to Auckland are protected by the Great Barrier Island hydrophone array. Early warning sorted, and just a quick dash from Whenuapai! (seriously tongue in cheek, but it's there) I suspect those P3 figures apply to the additional restrictions applied to the (very old) airframes operated by the USN. As built the P3's had much longer patrol times. On the other hand if the Govt purchased a couple of tankers? ? I still doubt the P8 could turn like a P3 and "unexpected" maintenance could be quite high but the added range capability would be so nice. You have to feel for the RAF though. Their tankers are not even compatible with their P8s! And the USN have to ask the USAF for tanker support. That must really upset them. How do the Navy maintain the array now that Resolution has gone?
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Apr 30, 2017 13:30:12 GMT 12
If a vessel in distress has a working EPIRB then you would be correct. If not the P8 would have less time on station searching than the P3. The USN do not do SAR usually as this is primarily a US Coastguard responsibility. They use the C130 among other others for this role.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Apr 30, 2017 13:04:28 GMT 12
No I am not a fishhead but I do try to keep up with the technology. Bad news is....AIP (the future) means no diesel to smell and they are very very quiet. Even relatively noisy RN and US SSNs have always been able to penetrate screens Because no or less snorting required Radar is less effective. Bear in mind you can fit radar receivers which will pick up a P8 (or other aircraft) radar before being detected themselves. To use sonobuoys you need to know roughly where the sub is before you can start (the hard bit) and then have to drop them close enough to be effective. Because you get different saline density layers in oceans they are ineffective if they are in the wrong layer. Frankly you either need a huge array of sensors on the seabed or another submarine to have any success unless you can get a target to use active sonar modes . I still do not see the P8 as having the same ability to loiter at low level in high winds and low visibility as the P3 or C130 as demonstrated in a NZ-Tonga yacht race of a few years ago.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Apr 30, 2017 12:17:42 GMT 12
Why don't you go back through this thread and read them? See if you have anything new to say. You are correct. There was certainly heaps of discussion on the SeaHerc
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Apr 30, 2017 11:48:58 GMT 12
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Apr 30, 2017 11:37:45 GMT 12
If you want your P8 to prosecute subs you are going to have a problem. It only has sonobuoys which are pretty useless according to a RN SSN driver. There was no mention of buying any of the (untested) drones that the USN and RAAF are buying. The reality is the P8 as in the request is configured more for anti surface work. As far as the Chinese go I am sure that the mighty US under Greatest US President Trump will stop them long before they become a problem for the RNZAF.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Apr 30, 2017 10:00:49 GMT 12
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Apr 30, 2017 9:09:36 GMT 12
Why do you keep calling it a 737 Jeffref? A P-8 is a different airframe altogether. 737-800 Fuselage 737-900 Wings
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Apr 30, 2017 8:50:08 GMT 12
Four P8s will not replace 6 P3's. The P8 has less range than a P3 for a start unless you are going to buy tankers to refuel them. Secondly they will require more maintenance especially if they are going to be used low down. The 737 is not designed for this. You can of course do it but there will be a cost. A third problem is unlike the P3 you can only operate off a long runway which can easily use airports like Greymouth or Kaitaia. At full load you are talking about Christchurch, Mangere and maybe Ohakea. This purchase looks to be designed for RNZAF to use the aircraft outside NZ for the benefit of our "allies" which is stupid because of our already low budget. As far as buying other aircraft for our own missions, why? If you buy suitable aircraft in the first place there is no point. If the Govt has any brains it will purchase an aircraft that can do both the tactical airlift and the MP mission. You can save heaps of cash on training, and maintenance because there is only need for one set of spares and you can probably buy more as well. If you buy the P8, the CN235 and tactical airlift aircraft as well you are just going to increase your costs and reduce the money available for the future.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Apr 29, 2017 16:53:38 GMT 12
If the plan is for them do what the USN, RAAF and RAF do then we will not see them operate in NZ. As far as low level operation is concerned you can expect more rebuilds earlier rather than later as the 737 was never intended to go low and slow in fine conditions let alone storms. No problem for the USN as they have a gigabuck budget. The NZ role is closer to the USCG since we have no similar independent operation. I understand the area off Hawaii had already been searched and the P3 had been asked to keep an eye out. So getting back to the original thread A C130J with a palletised load can do the USCG mission, the US Navy antiSUW and antiSub mission, can operate as a tanker and do the Tactical mission as well as combat tasking and other bits and pieces which is what this thread started as. You have this huge space where you could even have a game of pool or two if you wanted.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Apr 29, 2017 15:21:48 GMT 12
What is the primary role of a Maritime Surveillance aircraft. Now thats tricky. The P8 is primarily configured to locate and presumably try to sink Russian surface vessels and with optional drones to try to do the same with submarines. Now how many Russian warships have you seen down thisaway lately? ? Now I have no doubt that the P8 can probably locate Kutsnetsov and using Harpoon or its replacement damage or sink it but frankly it is going to struggle against submarines since AIP means that no longer will you be able to detect a snort by RDF nor will you be able to "smell" diesel emissions. As far as dropping sonobuoys go a RN SSN driver said the only time he was detected he was "very close". They are also only useful in the layer they are set normally on the surface. If the U Boats (whoops) go below that layer they are useless.Hunting submarines has changed since WW2 and frankly aircraft are no longer an answer. As far as effectiveness of the P3 and P8 in SAR goes they should ask the USN. A returning P3 was asked to help US Navy P8's and USCG C130s to help search for a missing boat off Hawaii. Guess who found the boat? Premier MSA? Bollocks. The P8 got the US contract because it had better influence in Congress. The USN tried twice to get more P3s but were denied. NZ has commitments to patrolling one of the largest oceanic areas in the world. That is why we need a MSA not to patrol for non-existent Russian warships. If the poo ever did hit the fan it would all be over before you got MinDef out of bed anyway.
|
|