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 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.
|
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Apr 30, 2017 13:48:34 GMT 12
Well that's me shot down in flames thankyou Mr Errol C.Sounds like we have a real crisis on our hands according to you.I would lay odds five squadron could keep those P3s flying if they had to which is their job.So what if I said something that's already been covered,no harm in refreshing peoples memorys mate.It would seem there is no suitable replacement for an orion except another Orion.If the p8 is not up to search and rescue then its a waste of space. Can you explain how "five squadron could keep those P3s flying if they had to which is their job" if particular spare parts are no longer available? Our P-3's are now over 50 years old (the design is even older), there comes a time when manufacturers stop making parts. Dave H. as covered it extensively - we have reached that time, parts are no longer being made, and available spares have been snapped up by other P-3 operators. Who has said the P-8 is "not up to search and rescue"? Certainly not the RNZAF, RAAF and the USN and they would know better than anyone else. What the P-8 will offer the RNZAF in terms of SAR is a faster transit time to the search area, which increases the likelihood of survival for those in distress. As a personal aside, to complement the potential fewer P-8 numbers I'd like to see "some" of the air transport replacements (eg A400M or C-130J) fitted with an electro-optical camera system, to allow them to contribute as secondary SAR assets (as well as come in handy for overland missions). These are relatively inexpensive but I wouldn't hold by breath this would happen. I had an inkling that I'd heard the variation of the engines used on the P3's are also having support cut off but AFAIK they are only a minor variation from what the C130H (ie: 'older Hercs') use so I'm happy to be corrected on that score. Main points are - yes the P3 fleet will quite likely be unviable as a force in 5 years or so therefore a new fleet of something is required soon. All P8A operators including allies RAAF, USN & RAF, will use the P8 for long distance SAR, along with the myriad other tasks it can perform. None seem to have aproblem operating down low but just like P3 that will impact airframe & engine stress. Those myriad of tasks are something that the NZ Govt has decided the NZDF needs to get back into - they want the P8 expressly because they want to step up & play with the big boys... seamless coalition operations! Yes the P8 will be more focused on working with allies - that's the point, this is what the Govt (this one at least) wants the P3 replacement to do. What as already been widely discussed around the traps is the 42 sqn Kingair fleet has a lease expiring Sept this year and is to be replaced with a fleet of either B200 or B350 (which is yet to be determined) also leased, but expressly with the capability to operate SAR type sensor equipment. It's a 7 year lease after which a change in direction to a larger suitable type could occur, but no-one can foretell that for certain yet. So the lower end jobs currently undertaken by the P3's will be looked after by 42 sqn fleet at some point, perhaps longer term seeing 5 sqn get a smaller type... no-one knows yet. |
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on Apr 30, 2017 13:58:48 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)
|
|
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? |
|
Dinga
Warrant Officer
Posts: 34
|
Post by Dinga on Apr 30, 2017 16:11:29 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. I think I can see why 5 sqn would like the p8 and would be a tad unhappy if the Maritme C130 came into consideration.Thinking about it there old rivals at 40 Sqn would be loling but they (5sqn)would hate to have to fly them.I can imagine the ribbing they would get. I wonder if the P8 can drop a life raft,plenty of room in a Herc for life rafts and sonar buoys. |
|
|
|
Post by nige on Apr 30, 2017 16:54:40 GMT 12
I wonder if the P8 can drop a life raft,plenty of room in a Herc for life rafts and sonar buoys. The RAF intend to drop life rafts for their P-8 SAR activities: "The P-8A can operate at long range from its operating base without refuelling and has the endurance to carry out high and low-level airborne maritime and overland surveillance for extended periods. This cutting-edge aircraft will also be able to conduct wide-area search of open ocean to locate small boats and drop rescue life-rafts and equipment to vessels and people in distress." www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/mod-seals-the-deal-on-nine-new-maritime-patrol-aircraft-to-keep-uk-safe-11072016The USN are leading the development: "The US Navy (USN) plans to equip its fleet of P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) with search-and-rescue (SAR) kits that can be air-dropped from the platform's stores bay by 2018. The kit, which will include essential supplies such as a life raft, fresh water, radios and food rations, will augment the P-8A's capability as an effective SAR aircraft on top of it being a surveillance platform, said Commander Will Taraason from the USN's Patrol Squadron 5." www.janes.com/article/62649/usn-to-deploy-search-and-rescue-kits-from-p-8a-aircraft-by-2018 |
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Apr 30, 2017 18:06:25 GMT 12
P8's faster transit time means nothing, if a fuel stop at a longer runway is required (which is probable without the RNZAF getting a new base or 2, the s**t would have to be deep for that to happen).
The Maritime C130 will still cost a lot more than a standard C130 to operate, even without counting the role specific equipment. Even if they got C130s for transport you would still end up with two separate fleets operating under two maintenance programs or be faced with lots of wasted money & maintenance actions.
We are not just going to be hunting subs but things more like very large autonomous torpedoes which could be making no acoustic signal most of the time. So UAV's are likely to be required no matter what airframe we buy (an airframe MAD does give more options when chasing something dead in the water), however small ones that can be carried as a store will be cheaper to use, and the p8 has only half the number of hard points of the P1.
|
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Apr 30, 2017 18:24:29 GMT 12
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. When (if ever) have RNZAF P-3's ever operated out of those or other regional locations? They have been to Invercargill in recent times but that's about it as far as I am aware, and the P-3K2 is itself limited by weight as to which strips in NZ it can use. At full load you are talking about Christchurch, Mangere and maybe Ohakea. Or Whenuapai even. |
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Apr 30, 2017 18:29:44 GMT 12
Not Whenuapai at full load!
|
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Apr 30, 2017 18:41:08 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 In shape, yes. In structure, no. P-8 has more ribs and thicker skin. Being run off the some production line doesn't mean it's the same aircraft. SaveSave |
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on Apr 30, 2017 18:45:27 GMT 12
Yep, unfortunately not. Whenuapai needs another 3-4000 feet added to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Apr 30, 2017 18:53:49 GMT 12
Reading through the comments here it looks like people think "SAR," "ASuW," or "ASW" are big buttons that get pushed inside an aircraft.
Each of these mission types consist of multiple functions and tasks. Looking at SAR, it is essentially Transit| Find | Fix | Communicate | Coordinate | Assist | RTB. The only box the P-8 doesn't tick as well as the others is "'Assist."
|
|
|
|
Post by classicman on Apr 30, 2017 19:43:09 GMT 12
Well that's it then - due to runway length requirements 5 SQN Is going to Ohakea with the introduction of the P8!
Official rumour started right here.
Watch the resignations ROLL in. Not even a flash new toy would stop that.
|
|
|
|
Post by nige on Apr 30, 2017 19:57:22 GMT 12
Why start a rumour like that, scaring personnel and their families, when it hasn't even been decided by the government yet that they will actually buy the aircraft?
Even if the government were to purchase them surely another option that could be considered is basing them at Mangere (when it expands)? The RNZAF would gain additional infrastructure (buildings and a hangar), which could also accommodate other visiting foreign large jets to the Auckland region. Whenuapai would still be required for the other RNZAF squadrons based there and potentially any future short-medium range surveillance or transport aircraft?
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on Apr 30, 2017 19:57:34 GMT 12
Cmon OK, you loved Ohakea!
|
|
|
|
Post by classicman on Apr 30, 2017 20:00:51 GMT 12
😬
|
|
|
|
Post by isc on Apr 30, 2017 20:14:21 GMT 12
The RAF currently has no maritime patrol capability, and is looking at 3 aircraft, the P-8, C-130J Sea Hercules, and the P-1. The P-8 is quoted at $US250 million, the P-1 at $US140 million, with the C-130J somewhere in between. isc
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on Apr 30, 2017 20:17:03 GMT 12
The RAF currently has no maritime patrol capability, and is looking at 3 aircraft, the P-8, C-130J Sea Hercules, and the P-1. The P-8 is quoted at $US250 million, the P-1 at $US140 million, with the C-130J somewhere in between. isc The RAF has bought the P8, 9 of them in fact.... Nige, I fear you have missed the sarcasm! And I don't think many in the RNZAF would take their life planning advice from a bulletin board. |
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Apr 30, 2017 20:25:51 GMT 12
Over the life of P8's it would be cheaper to build a new base than be based at Mangere, unless it was just ramp space for one and a shipping container sized office.
Another point is what happens if they want to dispatch at some high traffic time, there are times when they could be subject to an extended hold before a takeoff slot is available (the airlines aren't going to give up their slots regularly particularly the budget airlines as the flow on effects will be just too great).
|
|
? 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. 
