|
|
Post by nige on Apr 7, 2010 7:40:26 GMT 12
On the assumption the P-3K will receive its long awaited stand-off weapon upgrade in due course, can anyone advise:
1. What would the likely weapon be (eg Harpoon or is there a new generation type that could be more applicable)?
2. If Harpoon, would it be easy to retro fit the necessary wiring to the wing hard points? (Or was wiring and/or wiring ducts added during Project Kestral)?
Similarly if the old torpedo stocks are replaced in due course, would there be any issues having them fitted? There's been some interesting advances in torpedo technology, some types can be released much further away from the "target" at higher altitudes.
Interesting times, potentially!
|
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Apr 7, 2010 10:33:57 GMT 12
I doubt the current P-3 wiring would support a stand-off missile. As well as the traditional analog wiring there would need to be some digital data-bus wiring (e.g. Mil Standard 1553) so the missile can "talk" with the aircraft systems. Hopefully they have planned ahead with the current upgrade and are installing all the necessary wiring, but knowing how the Air Force bureaucracy works I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't!
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwiscanfly on Apr 11, 2010 14:50:21 GMT 12
The P3-K2 could also be wired up for the new SLAM misile could it not??? and with the P3-K2 armament already on the Ministry of Defence LTPD i think that they would have installed all the bits needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwiscanfly on Apr 14, 2010 22:42:12 GMT 12
Sorry Phil but whats the 1776 data bus??  |
|
|
|
Post by kiwiscanfly on Apr 17, 2010 14:40:38 GMT 12
right ............. well im sure they have added it in.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 17, 2010 19:15:14 GMT 12
right ............. well im sure they have added it in. Lol. Why? |
|
|
|
Post by the_flying_surfer on Apr 17, 2010 22:27:35 GMT 12
It ain't in there. Big mod to get it added too.
|
|
|
|
Post by nige on Apr 18, 2010 9:27:46 GMT 12
Cheers, big mod = presumably that doesn't mean the P3 has some sort of nice and accessible duct space to run new data cabling etc, so does that mean its a case of removing panels (off the wing etc and putting them back on again afterwards) or stripping alot more of the aircraft?
The reason for me originally asking (as no doubt anything is possible when money is thrown at it) is will this be a major task requiring an aircraft to be in the hangar for weeks/months being upgraded or could it be done relatively quickly within a few days, meaning less downtime for the aircraft?
(Of course the other 'political' aspect, which some people wouldn't be able to comment on I suppose, is why this didn't happen during Proj Kestral or during these current "K2" upgrades where new wiring throughout most the aircraft is being put into place! Perhaps in the case of the latter, some provision is/has being made....?)!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Apr 18, 2010 9:48:00 GMT 12
I'm guessing installing the 1776 databus involves a lot more than just string some wires through the wings. See the thread about the Kahu Skyhawk wiring boxes and you'll see that there are all manner of fancy distribution and relay boxes etc, and there also has to be testing to ensure that the additional wiring doesnt interfere electronically with the existing bundles, nor the other way around. A little bit more complex than wiring up a car stereo! |
|
|
|
Post by kiwiscanfly on Apr 18, 2010 15:07:14 GMT 12
what i meant by "im sure its in there" was almost in hope............. well not any more. however the P3-K2 can at the moment be armed....... so the addition of the 1776 databus would allow us to arm the aircraft with what exactly?? could there be an upgrade that is not as complex as the 1776 that would allow the orions to use GBU's and JDAMS??
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwiscanfly on Apr 19, 2010 21:22:30 GMT 12
wow so again Labor has upgraded another platform to the minimum requirement and done little to prepare for or accommodate a major capability that could be used of one that we may need in the future......... I almost feel sorry for the national government!! (I must say that the P3-K2 upgrade is good but why only go half way???)
|
|
|
|
Post by caromeg on Apr 20, 2010 7:08:13 GMT 12
And how do you rate the K-2 as a good upgrade? Whats the benchmark? I'd argue that already some of the systems on board are out of date and their will be issues with on going support from within NZ.
The lack of config for combat operations in P-3 is directly due to last Government tinkering with defence (we all know about the A-4 and LAV nonsence). They did things that were just wrong, and we all let them get away with it.
There is no progressive military thinking or development in NZ, its all hidebound political correectness and group think. Anyone heard of the Maginot Line? Battleships cant be sunk by aircraft?
the japs fly upside down? singapore is an unassailable fortress?
I heard similar things in my career - 1999 - We'll never deploy a Battalion again, - one year later we rotated 6 through Timor!.
So in spite of a few niggles with the P-3 project (which we can all put down to lesson learned) we are going to have an descent overland capability, (a domain that is realistically done better by UAVs) when we are a Maritime Nation (where I'd argue a large manned platform is best for BAMS), with a significant number of submarines in the wider Asia region. No ASM or descent AS capability upgrades. You've got to be kidding.
What stupid nation does that .. oh ...wait.....
|
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Apr 20, 2010 7:09:47 GMT 12
We are lucky we have still got P-3's at all and they aren't with the Skyhawks at Woodbourne growing grass under them. Labour almost scrapped them at the same time as the Air Combat Force.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwiscanfly on Apr 20, 2010 19:15:27 GMT 12
i had no idea that they were considering that!! but that would have been insane! what would be their reasoning for that one?
|
|
|
|
Post by caromeg on Apr 20, 2010 20:59:20 GMT 12
This is on the money - we all knew the story that when HC hopped onto a C-130 at Whenuapai, the first thing she said was oh so this is an Orion, er no ma'am thats one of those over there. The real politik of the P-3 is that we need about 19-20 for the eez we have - and wider regional responsibility. So with only 6 we know this much and with none we know nothing. I was there when she got the reality check (by others -not me), still couldn't get off her broom stick, begrudgingly agreed to keep P-3 but no ASW because that is "American" conventional warfare white man magic.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwiscanfly on Apr 20, 2010 21:56:53 GMT 12
its has always been known that the RNZAF toes the line when it comes to the number of aircraft that we need VS what we have, but i never had any idea of how low the labor party regarded defense, I can't believe that they would even consider getting rid of one of our most important capabilities.
|
|
|
|
Post by caromeg on Apr 20, 2010 22:23:18 GMT 12
With all due respect kiwiscan fly, beleive it.
Labour: Destroy Fast Jet Capability
remove Army Light infantry specialisation and motorised a light inf army at the cost of the rest of defence
half arsed upgrades of p-3
protector fleet on a shoe string with no real war fighting capability
underfund and mock the reserves
shall I go on, I'd suggest the P-3 would not have been the only thing on the chopping block!
|
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Apr 21, 2010 7:44:32 GMT 12
I believe the Frigates were also on her chopping list...
The P-3 was only 'saved' after one was sent to Australia to rescue her when she couldn't get a civil flight home due to a strike. It was a deliberate move by the RNZAF to send a P-3 rather than a Herc or Boeing. She then had several hours on the flight home to be 'educated' about the aircraft and it's capability.
At the recent unveiling of the memorial to Sir Keith Park in London guess who turned up as an official guest - HC. The Red Arrows did a flypast and it was pointed out to all present that two members of the team were Kiwis - ex Skyhawk pilots. HC made the comment "I might have got that one wrong". Too little too late Helen...
|
|
|
|
Post by jimtheeagle on Apr 21, 2010 10:34:37 GMT 12
Great story Don, but as I was there (at the unveiling) and HC wasn't, and neither were the Red Arrows, it falls down somewhat on the accuracy front. I can't say that at some other event all these things didn't happen, but it wasn't November last year in Trafalgar Square. For the record the flypast was a Typhoon and a Spitfire, with no New Zealand aircrew aboard.
As to the topic at hand, although we were mainly discussing other things, when I spoke to CO 5SQN yesterday, I got the impression that the wiring for any stand-off P-3 weapon is dependent on the choice of weapon, and a weapon is indeed in the Long Term Development Plan, but there's no point in integrating one until you have and are operational with the sensors that will allow you to use it. So the general idea is to get P-3K2 up and running, train the crews for it and then programme in a weapons acquisition. The weapon chosen will dictate the degree of work needed. I am no specialist but got the impression it could be relatively straightforward on the wiring side, (stress, could be, depending etc) but that the integration with the sensors will be the more challenging part.
I don't know if the LTDP is published and publically available, but a P-3 stand-off weapon is in there - or so tells me someone who should know...
JT
|
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Apr 21, 2010 15:13:06 GMT 12
Yep good story, but I told it exactly as it was told to me by a former RNZAF pilot (and he wasn't a knuck either!). So yep, someone has their wires crossed somewhere! Apologies for getting it wrong. But it's not the first time I've heard people say HC now acknowledges she may have got that one wrong... maybe we should invite her to join the forum so she can tell us for herself!  |
|
