|
|
Post by ErrolC on May 9, 2018 13:30:56 GMT 12
Commentary on production changes for the B737 www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-plans-affordability-changes-for-new-wave-of-p-448278/... The cost efficiencies gained by leveraging a production system scaled up to once deliver more than 40 737s per month will be lost, as output dwindles to only 1.5 P-8s per month. To keep the P-8A competitive, Boeing has launched a push to improve the aircraft’s affordability. Inside the hangar in Renton where Boeing assembles P-8s, a sign reveals the existence of a staff working on creating a “future production system” for the type. |
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74 
|
Post by jeffref on May 9, 2018 14:07:29 GMT 12
Probably overspecifying the platform(still...),a bit of greed ,and the US forces lurching between Lockhheed and Boeing for big contracts,ones up, ones down. This was won in Congress where Boeing had the numbers. I think the USN would have preferred waiting for the drones to be proven to work before going down the P8 way. |
|
|
|
Post by vansvilla on May 9, 2018 14:21:25 GMT 12
Ron Marks has said the White paper was out of date when it was presented and is currently doing a review on requirements so anything is possible now.
|
|
|
|
Post by exkiwiforces on May 9, 2018 16:43:36 GMT 12
Currently I am still against the P-8. It will not do the job the way the job needs to be done. Its proponents tell us it is there to patrol the oceans and sink submarines. Consider these observations. There are two parts to anti sub ops. The first is stopping the lurking boomer (nuclear missile launching sub) which is the prime cold war task. Face it, there is no way any aircraft will find a boomer unless it knows where to look. You could cover half the ocean with sonobuoys and still miss it. It is akin to flight 370. The second is stopping the air breathers. This is more like the battle of the Atlantic, but things have moved on. Think SAM’s on subs and radar warning systems. Now you might think moving the search platform up to 30,000ft is going to make the odds better. It won’t. The prime senses for finding things on the surface are all electromagnetic. Radar has a small bandwidth, optical and infrared have their parts of the spectrum. Note, optical includes the mark one eyeball. In the radar world the point where RWS (radar warning systems) had the advantage over radar search systems had occurred before Kahu. So that means that at 30,000ft a surfaced sub knows you are looking for it when you are are 190Km away. When you get close enough to detect your returned signal at about 160Km (a really good radar system) the sub has sensibly submerged so you never new it was there. If the sub was still on the surface to be detected what can be done? Terms of engagement would surely exclude launching a missile at it. In fact you would only know it was a sub if the blip suddenly disappeared. This is a case for drones. But the drone has to be in the right place at the right time. If the drone is that good, why the expensive P-8 to manage it? There is more hope for optics and infrared as they are passive tools. Unfortunately they have their own set of disadvantages which are made worse by altitude. Both are degraded by distance through the atmosphere. The main culprit is water vapour. If it is cloud it totally stops sight. The lower frequency infrared can see through cloud but it is reduced a bit by that and all other water vapour in the atmosphere. For infrared to work the main pickup would be the subs exhaust gases as the subs hull temperature would have to be different to the sea around it to be visible. The only advantage of patrolling at 30.000ft is to monitor surface activity. Perhaps those P-8’s are really patrolling at 12,000ft where they can manage what they find, and not tell the whole world where they are. The more I look at the P-8 the more I think Fairey Battle (the RAF light bomber that ‘bombed’). I can only agree with the belief that the USN bought it because all the other options had been outmanoeuvred. Boeing failed the first time up with the maritime 757 in the late 90’s which had it won would have made more sense than the current 737 P-8. But that time the USN chose the more ‘Orion’ like option and the whole exercise failed on cost. I also note that Australia signed up for the MQ-4C (Triton) in August 2014, it was announced by Tony Abbott with no mention of numbers or cost. They are now in for seven. Also that Kawasaki has made an approach to the European group working to replace all their MPA’s (except UK and Norway of course) with local production mentioned. That is a ten year project so time might be on the P-1’s side. I feat that only if our government dithers for long enough will we end up with the best answer. Not a nice way to get there. Yes you correct on your assumption that the P8 is only half a platform if it doesn’t have have any UAV plug-in to it’s mission systems unless NZ finds any spare cash about to buy additional UAV’s and mission support systems including the required bandwidth for the UAV’s then the P8 is the way to go. But when you have to find a replacement for the Airlifter as at the same time there is really one option at the moment and if UAV’s do become an option down the track? Then I would be fair say that installing the required mission systems into the Aircraft would quite easy as I rather have a fully equipped MPA than half a one and when was the last time you seen a one arm boxer fight..... |
|
|
|
Post by exkiwiforces on May 9, 2018 16:48:59 GMT 12
Ron Marks has said the White paper was out of date when it was presented and is currently doing a review on requirements so anything is possible now. Only the Four or Five principles that are bring review which in my opinion is right do as we should focusing in the Antarctic, Sth Pacific and Asia atm and not MER which is slowly turning into a shit fight. |
|
|
|
Post by htbrst on May 9, 2018 17:56:17 GMT 12
www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-plans-affordability-changes-for-new-wave-of-p-448278/... The cost efficiencies gained by leveraging a production system scaled up to once deliver more than 40 737s per month will be lost, as output dwindles to only 1.5 P-8s per month. To keep the P-8A competitive, Boeing has launched a push to improve the aircraft’s affordability. Inside the hangar in Renton where Boeing assembles P-8s, a sign reveals the existence of a staff working on creating a “future production system” for the type. They've just built 100 of them, and think that they will get further 100 orders - Perhaps they could look at a P-8B based on the 737Max the get back in line with the civilian line? There's probably a sweet spot somewhere between building one-off old-style fuselages/wings/engines vs updating to whats coming off the production line. |
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on May 10, 2018 9:48:21 GMT 12
Currently I am still against the P-8. It will not do the job the way the job needs to be done. Its proponents tell us it is there to patrol the oceans and sink submarines. Consider these observations. There are two parts to anti sub ops. The first is stopping the lurking boomer (nuclear missile launching sub) which is the prime cold war task. Face it, there is no way any aircraft will find a boomer unless it knows where to look. You could cover half the ocean with sonobuoys and still miss it. It is akin to flight 370. The second is stopping the air breathers. This is more like the battle of the Atlantic, but things have moved on. Think SAM’s on subs and radar warning systems. Now you might think moving the search platform up to 30,000ft is going to make the odds better. It won’t. The prime senses for finding things on the surface are all electromagnetic. Radar has a small bandwidth, optical and infrared have their parts of the spectrum. Note, optical includes the mark one eyeball. In the radar world the point where RWS (radar warning systems) had the advantage over radar search systems had occurred before Kahu. So that means that at 30,000ft a surfaced sub knows you are looking for it when you are are 190Km away. When you get close enough to detect your returned signal at about 160Km (a really good radar system) the sub has sensibly submerged so you never new it was there. If the sub was still on the surface to be detected what can be done? Terms of engagement would surely exclude launching a missile at it. In fact you would only know it was a sub if the blip suddenly disappeared. This is a case for drones. But the drone has to be in the right place at the right time. If the drone is that good, why the expensive P-8 to manage it? There is more hope for optics and infrared as they are passive tools. Unfortunately they have their own set of disadvantages which are made worse by altitude. Both are degraded by distance through the atmosphere. The main culprit is water vapour. If it is cloud it totally stops sight. The lower frequency infrared can see through cloud but it is reduced a bit by that and all other water vapour in the atmosphere. For infrared to work the main pickup would be the subs exhaust gases as the subs hull temperature would have to be different to the sea around it to be visible. The only advantage of patrolling at 30.000ft is to monitor surface activity. Perhaps those P-8’s are really patrolling at 12,000ft where they can manage what they find, and not tell the whole world where they are. The more I look at the P-8 the more I think Fairey Battle (the RAF light bomber that ‘bombed’). I can only agree with the belief that the USN bought it because all the other options had been outmanoeuvred. Boeing failed the first time up with the maritime 757 in the late 90’s which had it won would have made more sense than the current 737 P-8. But that time the USN chose the more ‘Orion’ like option and the whole exercise failed on cost. I also note that Australia signed up for the MQ-4C (Triton) in August 2014, it was announced by Tony Abbott with no mention of numbers or cost. They are now in for seven. Also that Kawasaki has made an approach to the European group working to replace all their MPA’s (except UK and Norway of course) with local production mentioned. That is a ten year project so time might be on the P-1’s side. I feat that only if our government dithers for long enough will we end up with the best answer. Not a nice way to get there. But neither the P-8 or MQ-4C are dependent on each other to undertake their own role; being complementary capabilities not 'combined'. MQ-4C simply provides much more longer duration and longer rainging surveillance,. |
|
|
|
Post by horicle on May 15, 2018 13:43:23 GMT 12
This
Gets you this
KAWASAKI P1 - Flying Display at ILA 2018 Air Show Berlin
|
|
|
|
Post by horicle on May 16, 2018 15:45:45 GMT 12
See if this works. Just to be even handed.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmac on May 26, 2018 19:31:59 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on May 26, 2018 19:44:13 GMT 12
That will be why a certain aircraft was in WLG a few weeks ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by isc on May 26, 2018 21:06:55 GMT 12
There can be difficulties with having a bob each way. isc
|
|
|
|
Post by joey05 on May 27, 2018 10:45:21 GMT 12
So we might get some free Xian Y-20 large transports, Shaanxi Y-9 medium transport, we could get Hobsonville going again with some Harbin SH-5 flying boats!
|
|
|
|
Post by madmac on May 27, 2018 11:17:09 GMT 12
So we might get some free Xian Y-20 large transports, Shaanxi Y-9 medium transport, we could get Hobsonville going again with some Harbin SH-5 flying boats! & one free entry each to a concentration camp |
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on May 27, 2018 11:26:50 GMT 12
However, if the Americans allowed us to export as much to their country as we currnetly export to China, then I guess New Zealand could afford to ignore China and give America our 100% support (hopefully they'll deal to the clown currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue before too long).
We've gotta pay the bills somehow and at the moment a large proportion of the income which sustains us comes from China.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmac on May 27, 2018 19:26:58 GMT 12
Actually the impact of giving PRC trade the flick is grossly overrated. Most of their tourism is through PRC owned package tours & the agriculture products will still sell elsewhere for slightly less. I seem to call that while they may account for 20% of trade, a cessation of trade would only see a 5% or less drop in total trade.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 31, 2018 9:23:42 GMT 12
This thread is closed till there is an actual government announcement on a replacement for the Orions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 14, 2018 11:38:02 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 17, 2018 12:38:57 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Jun 17, 2018 13:12:47 GMT 12
mmm,interesting accounting.
Likley the best airframe for 5eyes, undoubtedly not the best for NZ.
|
|
