zkarj
Warrant Officer
Posts: 38
|
Post by zkarj on Jan 11, 2017 12:38:14 GMT 12
Just getting back into the boards after a long absence. My question would be how good is a P8 at keeping tabs on trawlers (including making its presence felt), spotting yachts in trouble and dropping supplies, surveying storm-ravaged islands, etc. Not much call for spotting submarines on a daily basis, I wouldn't think.
|
|
|
|
Post by exkiwiforces on Jan 11, 2017 12:47:51 GMT 12
|
|
hughw
Flying Officer
Posts: 58 
|
Post by hughw on Jan 12, 2017 15:38:42 GMT 12
Lets hope labour isn't the lead party at the time of the Orion replacement, otherwise we'll probably find ourselves with an aircraft having no ASW capability.
|
|
|
|
Post by exkiwiforces on Jan 12, 2017 16:51:35 GMT 12
Its not labour I'm worrying about, but its coalition mates.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jan 12, 2017 17:05:56 GMT 12
So if Defence has released a statement denying negotiations with Japan over the P-1, does this signal that negotiations have begun over the P-1? Just remembering Yes Minister 101, here.
|
|
|
|
Post by exkiwiforces on Jan 12, 2017 17:26:35 GMT 12
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be a duck.
As I love a punt, 3 to 1 odds that RNZAF goes for the P1 and I've got the P8 as a roughie. I've seen the form guide at work last year and it will work for the RAAF because we have the numbers and funding to make it happen, but i'm not sure about P8 as its going to bloody huge jump in capability across broad for RNZAF in fact the whole of NZDF and whole of government approach.
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jan 12, 2017 18:30:50 GMT 12
Just getting back into the boards after a long absence. My question would be how good is a P8 at keeping tabs on trawlers (including making its presence felt), spotting yachts in trouble and dropping supplies, surveying storm-ravaged islands, etc. Not much call for spotting submarines on a daily basis, I wouldn't think. The P8 is quite capable of flying as low as 200 ft to as you say keeping tabs on trawlers. it will have to be low and slow to drop liferafts etc. As for surveying storm ravaged islands, a USN P8 did survey flights of the Kaikoura coastline during its stay here. Submarines. Pretty sure China are building more and more and they'll be everywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jan 12, 2017 18:39:55 GMT 12
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be a duck. As I love a punt, 3 to 1 odds that RNZAF goes for the P1 and I've got the P8 as a roughie. I've seen the form guide at work last year and it will work for the RAAF because we have the numbers and funding to make it happen, but i'm not sure about P8 as its going to bloody huge jump in capability across broad for RNZAF in fact the whole of NZDF and whole of government approach. somewhere I read that someone said that some of the stuff put into the P3K2 upgrade was installed on the P8. I'm pretty sure us kiwis have the people to use these P8 to their utmost capabilities. Maybe some that have gone offshore might be tempted to come back. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jan 12, 2017 20:20:35 GMT 12
Do you mean all the ex-737 pilots from Air New Zealand Beags?
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jan 12, 2017 20:52:52 GMT 12
some of the young bright air crew that might have gone to other forces thinking they had better equipment to play with..
|
|
|
|
Post by noooby on Jan 13, 2017 6:00:42 GMT 12
Beagle, your points are all valid, but how does the P-8 increase loiter time? It can't shut down an engine like the P-3 and P-1 can. Every patrol I went on involved at least shutting down #1 engine. Sometimes #2 as well if they were taking photos from the entry door (rather than the photo window in the cockpit) so that exhaust efflux didn't blur the photos (can you take photos from a P-8?).
Just for the potential to increase your loiter and the fact that the P-1 has real windows designed for Mk.1 eyeballs, the Japanese get my vote!
American policy seems to be geared towards making things less personal. Remote this and remote that, to hell with the expense (the US economy depends on a strong military to survive).
Just my 2c!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2017 13:36:47 GMT 12
Based on looks alone I hope we go with the P-1  Either way I hope to see one at Ohakea next month. |
|
|
|
Post by noooby on Jan 14, 2017 6:43:07 GMT 12
A P-1 at Ohakea next month?  ? |
|
|
|
Post by jimtheeagle on Jan 14, 2017 8:29:37 GMT 12
This is from an article I wrote on the P-1's visit to RIAT for 'Aviation News'(UK) in 2015:
"The P-1’s four engines are Ishikawajima-Harima F7-10 high-bypass ratio two-spool turbofans with thrust reverse rated at 13,448 lb (59.8kN) static thrust and are unique to the P-1. Unlike the P-3, the P-1 does not shut down one engine for longer endurance, but runs all four at reduced power. The turbofans give a higher dash speed, allowing more time on station and reportedly the P-1 can fly more slowly than the P-3, aiding in visual search."
I got the info on endurance from a P-1 crewman. The P-1 is optimised for low-level visual search unlike the P-8.
JT
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jan 14, 2017 11:32:54 GMT 12
The P-1 and P-8 both have jet engines. Have the manufacturers of those engines worked out how to make them efficient without having to be constantly run, like an airliner's engines seem to need to retain the optimum performance?
I am thinking in terms of the Boeing 757's in the RNZAF that apparently have lots of maintenance issues cropping up because they are not operated like regular airliners, and will fly, shut down, cool down, sit a few days and then fly again, resulting in engine issues. So have the engines on the patrol aircraft been designed to avoid this? As a patrol bomber won't be flying constantly every day, surely.
And, if they have solved that issue, why can that technology not be applied to military airliners like out Boeing 757's to reduce their issues??
|
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Jan 14, 2017 14:15:53 GMT 12
Just getting back into the boards after a long absence. My question would be how good is a P8 at keeping tabs on trawlers (including making its presence felt), spotting yachts in trouble and dropping supplies, surveying storm-ravaged islands, etc. Not much call for spotting submarines on a daily basis, I wouldn't think. The P8 is quite capable of flying as low as 200 ft to as you say keeping tabs on trawlers. it will have to be low and slow to drop liferafts etc. As for surveying storm ravaged islands, a USN P8 did survey flights of the Kaikoura coastline during its stay here. Submarines. Pretty sure China are building more and more and they'll be everywhere. It was a USN P3C here for RNZN 75th & undertaking Kaikoura reconn... nz.usembassy.gov/u-s-navy-p-3c-orion-provides-assistance-new-zealand-earthquake/ |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2017 17:04:01 GMT 12
And a JMSDF P-1!
|
|
|
|
Post by foxcover on Jan 14, 2017 19:48:51 GMT 12
Just getting back into the boards after a long absence. My question would be how good is a P8 at keeping tabs on trawlers (including making its presence felt), spotting yachts in trouble and dropping supplies, surveying storm-ravaged islands, etc. Not much call for spotting submarines on a daily basis, I wouldn't think. The P8 is quite capable of flying as low as 200 ft to as you say keeping tabs on trawlers. it will have to be low and slow to drop liferafts etc. As for surveying storm ravaged islands, a USN P8 did survey flights of the Kaikoura coastline during its stay here. Submarines. Pretty sure China are building more and more and they'll be everywhere. The P8 is not suited to flying at 200ft above the ocean! I think you just make things up to suit sometimes! |
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Jan 15, 2017 13:02:46 GMT 12
Hmmm the problem for the P8 to drop down from 20,000 to inspected ship up close is it is going to burn something in the order of 3000 lb of fuel to climb back to altitude*. Which is somewhere between 4% to 8% of max possible fuel load, let alone what percentage it is of the time on station fuel load. So they might be limited to inspecting 1 or 2 ships in the Antarctic waters if we are lucky.
There is inconsistency with published gross weight, empty weight and quoted fuel loads. The figures from wikipedia only allow 50,000 lb of fuel and payload, while the RAAF quotes ~34 tonnes of fuel (75,000 lb).
*737-800 uses 5000 lb to climb to altitude, P8 is only going to 20,000ft but has higher weight with a higher aspect wing and higher drag airframe,so 3000 looks good.
|
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Jan 15, 2017 15:05:18 GMT 12
So if a Japanese group of Government and Industry people came here and did not talk to Defence they must have talked to Government. They did not come here for a holiday. Is that good or bad? My heart says go for the C-2 P-1 as I want a jet Orion, not a passenger plane full of electronics. Could we get a 5/5/5 deal like 5 P-1s and 5 C-2s leased for 5 years with the right to purchase after that. Japan really wants to get into the export market and we might need to be first to get the best deal.
|
|
Either way I hope to see one at Ohakea next month.
?
