|
|
Post by foxcover on May 23, 2017 18:46:20 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. The video of the P-1 debut at RIAT seems to show it taking off in quite a short distance, not sure how much fuel and load it was carrying though. |
|
|
|
Post by dutchkiwi on May 24, 2017 4:25:50 GMT 12
Finally, and again, many people here seem to think that SAR is a core requirement for the RNZAF MPA..... I argue it's far from it. Can it do it, sure. Should it, perhaps, but it would be better if there was another government agency that did the majority of it. The P-8 isn't just an MPA is a really capable ISR platform. Well,sure half time of P-3 operations has to do with SAR! Searching for (enemy) submarines is something that they almost never practised. Search and Rescue and fisheries patrol is one of the main task. Personally, I think that this task needs to be part of RNZAF (and Navy). Just my personal thought. |
|
|
|
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 beagle on May 29, 2017 20:24:05 GMT 12
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.
They were probably all going goo goo, dribble dribble, like I would be if I was there.
2. How big are the alternators on the engines of the twin engine contenders. MPA need a lot of Kilowatts.
Double the civilian counterparts. 180kva as opposed to 90
They really need some outside assistance. Are we putting our hands up?
NOPE, but once P8 manufacture is completed and any current P3 operators have not purchased, there might be a chance to sell to them, as only other MPA would be the C295
|
|
Karas
Leading Aircraftman
Posts: 8 
|
Post by Karas on May 29, 2017 23:31:04 GMT 12
For reference the Orion has 3x 90kVA generators (one of the engines lacks a generator, probably to save weight). If anyone knows what the generator configuration is for the P-1 I'd like to know. Kawasaki P-1 mission crew  This is a still taken from a video. In the flight deck are two pilots and a flight engineer, next are two TACCOs followed by four operators on the tac-rail operating the radar, EO/IR camera, sonobouys, MAD and other sensors. Not pictured are the air electronics technician, who presumably makes in-flight repairs, and the air ordnanceman, who manhandles the sonobouys into their tubes and operates the Canon. Total crew: 11. The Poseidon has 5 mission stations as opposed to the 6 shown here and no flight engineer. Total crew: 9. |
|
|
|
Post by madmac on May 30, 2017 9:15:53 GMT 12
|
|
Karas
Leading Aircraftman
Posts: 8
|
Post by Karas on May 30, 2017 18:45:18 GMT 12
With the help of google translate I was able to determine that there is probably no mention of the generator in that document Madmac. This should not be too surprising an engine's generator is often designed completely separately by a different company. However this spurred me have a proper search on the internet and I was able to find it! The generator is a joint project of Sinfonia Technology Japan and Kawasaki Heavy Industries. It is named the T-IDG (Traction-drive Integrated Drive Generator) and is configured to output 90kVA of power. It is mentioned that there is design room to go up to 250kVA in a future variant, not sure if that applies to the P-1 though. Presumably each engine will fit a generator, to equal the P-8s total of 360kVA. Sources: sunjet-project.eu/sites/default/files/KHI-Goi.pdfglobal.kawasaki.com/en/corp/newsroom/news/detail/20101130_1.htmlAlso, early in my search I found this statement about the F7-10 engine (which was purpose built for the P-1): "Titanium alloy, nickel alloy, aluminium, etc. are heavily used as a measure against salt damage." |
|
pops
Leading Aircraftman
Posts: 7
|
Post by pops on Jun 1, 2017 18:30:13 GMT 12
Lockheed Martin still lists the Sea Hercules as being in development. How easy is it to drop a liferaft out of a P8 to a sinking yachtie? www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/c130/c-130j-variants/sc-130j.htmlSea Hercules might be low and slow like a P3, that enables the finding of Pac Island missing boaties with no epirbs. Able to fly off shorter Pac Island runways with sub-standard surfaces when doing post cyclone assessments. tinyurl.com/y88cthsp (Sea Herc 4 page brochure listed with mad) Hercules are used for hurricane research so there should be the knowledge and capability to design and make a sea hercules to fly in very turbulent Pacific Ocean conditions. NZ might get on the back of the Australian Triton marine patrol drone order (potentially base the NZ drone operators with an Australian east coast drone base for flight ops over the NZ marine patrol area, reducing stand alone drone service/ logistics). The Triton has a 30 hour flight time. The P8 is designed to link with the Triton drone so potentially sea herc will link with the triton drone to reduce flight time to targets for low level identification/ verification/ potential neutralisation. With a sea herc less likely to require any NZ runway upgrades and potentially have a few parts etc in common with a super Herc c130j transport to reduce personnel training costs.(if the old hercs are replaced with Super hercs) If NZ buys the P8s and they don't work out can they be converted to other roles? (High value cargo) |
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jun 1, 2017 22:32:40 GMT 12
There will be no " sea herk" purchase
|
|
pops
Leading Aircraftman
Posts: 7
|
Post by pops on Jun 2, 2017 10:40:50 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Jun 2, 2017 13:55:38 GMT 12
Lockheed Martin still lists the Sea Hercules as being in development. How easy is it to drop a liferaft out of a P8 to a sinking yachtie? www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/c130/c-130j-variants/sc-130j.htmlSea Hercules might be low and slow like a P3, that enables the finding of Pac Island missing boaties with no epirbs. Able to fly off shorter Pac Island runways with sub-standard surfaces when doing post cyclone assessments. tinyurl.com/y88cthsp (Sea Herc 4 page brochure listed with mad) Hercules are used for hurricane research so there should be the knowledge and capability to design and make a sea hercules to fly in very turbulent Pacific Ocean conditions. NZ might get on the back of the Australian Triton marine patrol drone order (potentially base the NZ drone operators with an Australian east coast drone base for flight ops over the NZ marine patrol area, reducing stand alone drone service/ logistics). The Triton has a 30 hour flight time. The P8 is designed to link with the Triton drone so potentially sea herc will link with the triton drone to reduce flight time to targets for low level identification/ verification/ potential neutralisation. With a sea herc less likely to require any NZ runway upgrades and potentially have a few parts etc in common with a super Herc c130j transport to reduce personnel training costs.(if the old hercs are replaced with Super hercs) If NZ buys the P8s and they don't work out can they be converted to other roles? (High value cargo) I do wonder how Sth.Pac. tasking will go with a P8 if there's no suitable runways... I guess they'll just have to do shorter sorties to allow t/o with a lighter fuel load. Triton... well that's an unknown quantity until NZDF show any real desire to commit to drone technology - whereas many militaries, including all our significant defence partners, have already embraced them! NZDF will be well aware of any potential 'runway length' issues of each platform type so I think it's safe to assume they will have it sorted. There has I believe been a high level acknowledgement that new a/c purchases will require new 'infrastructure investment' - not just hangars etc. I presume you have your tongue in your cheek when you wonder if the P8 could be re-roled it they 'don't work out'!?!  |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 2, 2017 16:03:15 GMT 12
If you read the NZ Govt budget money was provided for base upgrades, so perhaps runway extension is part of that?
|
|
Karas
Leading Aircraftman
Posts: 8
|
Post by Karas on Jun 3, 2017 14:51:03 GMT 12
The Americans never give anything away for free...
I'm not saying submarines aren't there, but they are very easy for politicians to ignore. I was forgetting that EEZ/fisheries patrol is a non-military role though, P-8s would do that.
Anyway, thanks for reporting this information, I see from the other thread that you are in blue at 40Sqn, we'll see if this turns out to be correct in time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 3, 2017 18:14:04 GMT 12
Sshhh, don't post about that 1.5 thing and the politicians won't cotton on, and we'll get 4.
|
|
|
|
Post by vansvilla on Jun 3, 2017 18:22:06 GMT 12
Jeez, there's some shite happening here, 3 A/c will never replace 5. How often do Herc's fly in formation on the same mission. Even with 5 we still struggle to meet tasking.
Training, tasking, servicing.
|
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Jun 3, 2017 18:55:06 GMT 12
Not my preference but...very few recent equipment replacements have been like for like in terms of qty.
6 Orions to be replaced by 4 Poseidens?
As newer equipment is allegedly(what the brochure says) more capable,efficient and requires less maintenance,and costs s...loads more,lesser number are deemed required.ie, UH-1H x18 - NH90 x8,CT4 x14 - T6 x 11
A Frigate fleet of 2,just about any equipment capability for army is 2/3 or less current qty.
Not that long ago all the hoohaa about a fleet of qty.1 x C-17,to 'replace' 5 Hercs!.
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jun 3, 2017 19:46:12 GMT 12
well well well now I've read it all.
8 x C130's
reliable source, well lets be
shown this source
heard it here first. lots of rumours are heard here first.
4 for the price of 3. tell us the price, tell us what is included in the price.
come on, you have made statements. stand up and show us the proof
cause at the moment it all sounds like a self dream like others do on forums....
|
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Jun 14, 2017 19:16:00 GMT 12
Latest marketing update from Saab Swordfish/Bombardier's Global 6000 aircraft. "Recent product development milestones at Saab and Bombardier have validated a significant increase in the available payload carried on Swordfish’s four, NATO-compatible hard points. Swordfish can now be armed with up to six lightweight-torpedoes for the [anti-submarine warfare] role. Swordfish can also carry the Saab next generation RBS15 anti-ship missile or a mix of missiles and torpedoes to assure total sea control in every aspect. The Swordfish can equally carry a load of four search-and-rescue pods underlining its true multi-mission capability across the maritime domain. Swordfish also carries a magnetic anomaly detector and around 200 A-, F- and G-size sonobuoys." Source: Saab beefs up Swordfish patrol plane By: Michael Peck, June 12, 2017 www.c4isrnet.comre: fleet size For training, tasking and servicing rotation: 3-4 (P-8) units vs 5-6 (6000s or P-1s) units? The numbers are pretty hard to ignore no matter what technology sophistication you want to offset this by...unless the proven readiness and sustainability measures of the P-8s are that incontestable. re: C-130J Has Lockheed secured any orders for the SC-130J Sea Hercules variant? I've found no news/articles beyond they were still developing the variant in 2016. |
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Jun 14, 2017 19:29:29 GMT 12
Just came across this article in Janes Boeing has dropped both their Bombardier Challenger 605 business jet-based Maritime Surveillance Aircraft (MSA) and Reconfigurable Airborne Multi-Intelligence System (RAMIS) from their portfolio, after failing to secure sales for either platform. The MSA was intended to be Boeing's SAR/ MPA-Lite product offering This leaves Boeing "P-8 Poseidon maritime multimission aircraft (MMA), the Insitu ScanEagle/Integrator unmanned aerial vehicle, and the Echo Voyager unmanned undersea vehicle (UUV)" for MPA/ISR solutions. You can read more: www.janes.com/article/71358/boeing-drops-msa-and-ramis-platforms-from-portfolio |
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jun 14, 2017 19:59:59 GMT 12
why even mention swordfish.
If every one read the RFI etc there is only one contender.
plus do not forget 5 EYES
5 SQN will be operating qty 4 P8 Poseidon aircraft in the near future.
|
|
