|
|
Post by beagle on May 3, 2017 19:52:06 GMT 12
Maybe that is being discussed and a 50/50 option for costs for runway lengthening at OH between both parties.
With all the new housing going on around Whenuapai, noise, grumpy house owners who know good lawyers etc, how is the second runway at mangare proceeding and could there be an option of having 5 sqn based there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 3, 2017 20:19:03 GMT 12
I am not sure where this fabled second runway at Mangere is meant to go, after they have allowed most of the area to be built on. Are they planning to reclaim more sea?
|
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on May 3, 2017 20:49:42 GMT 12
They haven't built on where the second runway will go Dave but are bloody close to it! I preseume those leasing these sites have been told that one day they will have to move out? The road to the airport will have to go underground as well if it happens. Will be an expensive job.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on May 3, 2017 22:16:39 GMT 12
I am not sure where this fabled second runway at Mangere is meant to go, after they have allowed most of the area to be built on. Are they planning to reclaim more sea? Best visible on 2009 Google Earth imagery from when they were actually working on it:  It has reverted back to farmland for now, until someone gets interested in it again. Worth noting that it has always been intended to be shorter than the existing runway, for use by domestic flights, therefore of no relevance to whether a P8 could use it.... |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by nige on May 3, 2017 23:12:21 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on May 4, 2017 14:13:49 GMT 12
|
|
Karas
Leading Aircraftman
Posts: 8
|
Post by Karas on May 4, 2017 15:18:51 GMT 12
 A recap on basic data. Speeds in knots, distances in nautical miles. Please offer corrections for figures if you think they are wrong.
Max Speed Cruise Speed Ferry Range Crew Size
P-3 Orion 411 (100%) 328 (100%) 4830 (100%) 11
P-8 Poseidon 490 (119%) 440 (134%) 4320 (89%) 9
Kawasaki P-1 538 (131%) 450 (137%) 4500 (93%) 11
This is a two horse race as none of the other contenders are realistic. In my opinion the P-1 is the best aircraft for NZ and I base that assessment on a lot more than just the data I've presented here. However I'm willing to take 10 to 1 odds that Poseidon is the one picked. I think the savings on crew size will not be overlooked by the MoD. Every senior officer and up is going to want to be as interoperable as possible with the US and Aussies as well (which is not something I consider necessary). |
|
|
|
Post by jimtheeagle on May 4, 2017 22:33:01 GMT 12
A useful table, but of the potential get contenders, you are leaving out the Saab Swordfish, based on the Bombardier Global 6000. Its specs are:
Max Speed Cruise Speed Ferry Range Crew Size
Saab Swordfish 450 350 5200 7
The P-1 has a crew of "11-13", which can be looked at as 11 with 2 extra seats as needed depending on mission, so essentially the same as the P-3.
I would argue that ferry range, while easily comparable, is not as important as endurance at distance, although finding comparable specs is tricky. I have 12 hrs@200nm and 8.5hrs@1000nm for the Swordfish, 4hrs@1,200nm for the P-8 but simply "9 hours" for the P-1 with no distance given.
Acquistion costs: The P-8 is by some distance the most expensive (which is why the government is only looking at 4 aircraft). The P-1 is approximately 3/4 the cots of the P-8 and the Swordfish 2/3 the cost.
Lifecycle and operating costs are going to be important. The Swordfish would be the cheapest here with a lower fuel burn, well-supported platform and smaller crew.
Embraer are believed to be offering the KC-390 with a palletised mission system and a maritime version of the E190-E2 airliner, although details of these in MPA configuration are not available yet.
JT
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2017 8:49:59 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 5, 2017 9:22:29 GMT 12
You're telling me Zac. It's painful how often the same people repeat the same stuff over and over and it's still gotten us nowhere.
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Post by pepe on May 5, 2017 9:54:06 GMT 12
Haha, You're not the only one....  Unfortunately, most of the debate on here is based upon limited information (only the publicly available stuff). It is interesting to note that defense professionals (on other aviation/defense forums) consider the P-8 to be on "another level" when assessing it's information, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities, together with it's sensor/information sharing abilities. Future upgrade potential is also considered to be superior. Given how long this aircraft/capability will have to serve NZ, I hope the correct choice is made. |
|
|
|
Post by joey05 on May 5, 2017 10:18:26 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......
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on May 5, 2017 10:33:59 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...... Yes, Ohakea is an A380 divert. They can fly for 17 hours when fully loaded, passengers plus fuel for AKL/CHC from there is stuff all in comparison. They also have oversized wings (A380 was designed to be made bigger without changing the wing). Whereas the 737 wing is efficient for it's job, and the USN was happy with the trade-off of using essentially off-the-shelf wings but needing longer runways. It doesn't mean it's poor design - arguably the A380s are hauling around extra weight in wing structure for future expansion that looks very unlikely to ever be utilized. |
|
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! |
|
|
|
Post by conman on May 5, 2017 11:13:53 GMT 12
Haha, You're not the only one.... Unfortunately, most of the debate on here is based upon limited information (only the publicly available stuff). It is interesting to note that defense professionals (on other aviation/defense forums) consider the P-8 to be on "another level" when assessing it's information, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities, together with it's sensor/information sharing abilities. Future upgrade potential is also considered to be superior. Given how long this aircraft/capability will have to serve NZ, I hope the correct choice is made. Too be fair the PR team at Boeing are a lot better than those at KHI, interesting regarding statements on the upgrade path for the P8 , presumably the same was in place for the P3 but the RNZAF ended up going it alone on the upgrade path, did our requirements differ that much from the US Navy ? I can't imagine it was any cheaper. I'm sure the P8 is good but is really still in development, if NZ does go this pathway it would be interesting to see if we get the Advanced Airbourne Sensor, then we would end up with our own mini JSTARS ! (I believe the P1 already has this capability) |
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on May 5, 2017 15:43:24 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on May 5, 2017 20:55:28 GMT 12
Ok, time to put everything to bed.
1, there has not been any other media reports regards talking to the other bidders.
2, They have got the information back from a bidder to me was the original favourite. why, commonality with our allies.
3, This will be the aircraft purchased.
4, All aircraft will have something that is not entirely perfect with them but as shown in the past NZ has shown to get around these problems and I'm sure the same will be in this case.
5, Forget all the posts regards low level cannot do. It can, it will, it has been proven.
6, Lets just think on the bright side and wait for the future and how great it will be to NZ and the pacific.
|
|
