|
|
Post by isc on Jan 15, 2017 20:05:52 GMT 12
I found the reason for no MAD, they left it out to save 3500 lb. The MQ-4c UAV that the USN is going to compliment the P-8 with will have MAD capability.
The P-8 fuselage has been strengthened for low altitude use.
Ian S C
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jan 15, 2017 21:03:16 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! P8 has faster transit speed to search area as we should know, turbofan vs turbo prop, and has been stated it will go an extra 100 to 200km further than current P3 and stay on station an hour or more longer. In the future, the USM and RAAF will use inflight refuelling to extend this even further. They have a special window forward of the wing for what you are talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jan 15, 2017 21:08:35 GMT 12
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! Yes sorry folks I was incorrect in my remark regarding a USN P8 being here and being used to survey the Kaikoura coast. It was in fact a USN P3 and from some images I saw a female pilot. So I get it wrong at times, but for you mr "foxcover", if you actually read some proper facts for a change you will find that 200 feet is possible and the USN are currently operating it in the same fashion as the P3. The wing has been designed to do this as you will read in real publications. The engines have also had upgrades and alteration for use at low level. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jan 15, 2017 22:12:25 GMT 12
I could not see the point in having a maritime patrol aircraft that could not fly low level, and why would they patrol at 20,000 feet as suggested? Honestly, it beggars belief sometimes reading the comments here.
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jan 16, 2017 4:34:15 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by noooby on Jan 16, 2017 6:43:37 GMT 12
Thanks for the link Beagle. Shame about the reporting though. "With its aircrew trained to refuel the aircraft, the P-8A can drop into commercial airfields practically anywhere, get gas, and go." Um, just like a P-3 you mean, which has the exact same type of refueling connections (and in US service has a mechanic on board). "While the Orion can refuel in the air, it has very rarely done so". Really? P-3's with Air-to-Air refueling? I'm aware that testing was carried at out the Naval Air Test Center, but I didn't think it ever went into production aircraft, but I am happy to be proven wrong. Not trying to shoot the messenger Beagle, just pointing out that reporting these days is just so crap. They never check facts. I also note no mention of the role which our P-3's perform more frequently than any other mission profile. SAR. That is because US Navy P-3's and P-8's don't do SAR unless there are no other assets available. They use Coast Guard aircraft. Many Coast Guard aircraft have nice big round (well, square on the new C-27J) windows where people can look outside to try and find whatever is lost. It should also be noted (and isn't in the article) that 10.5 hours endurance on a P-3 is with all four engines turning and burning. Shut down #1 to get 12 hours, shut down #1 and #4 to get up to 16 hours. Suddenly time on station is better for the P-3. We don't have inflight refueling capability in NZ and are unlikely to ever get it. For sub-hunting, P-8. For SAR, something else closer to the P-3. Perhaps two Squadrons? 5Sqn with P-8 and 4Sqn with P-1?  ? |
|
|
|
Post by foxcover on Jan 16, 2017 10:15:48 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. Does NZ need 5 C-2's? Wouldn't a few smaller airlifter be more useful? 3 C-2's and a few C295W or C27J? |
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jan 16, 2017 16:57:43 GMT 12
yes they would be usefull in my mind too but aren't included in the RFI
Forget the C2
|
|
|
|
Post by isc on Jan 16, 2017 20:18:36 GMT 12
With the P-3 airborn refueling was to be done by S-3 Vikings from carriers, BUT the USAF heard about the idea, and said NO we do all strategic refueling with KC-135s and KC-10s, if you want air to air refueling call us, we might be able to help if we aren't busy else where. So they can, but they don't. I think the same will go for the P-8, although Lockheed want to reintroduce the S-3 Viking. isc
|
|
|
|
Post by haughtney1 on Jan 16, 2017 21:32:42 GMT 12
As much as I like the Japanese airframe in terms of design and concept, keep in mind it was designed specifically with the Japanese mission in mind. With all things being equal I genuinely wonder if the logistics chain of the JSDF would be able to support the export version if it was put into service in NZ. Yes in some mission parameters it's clearly a superior product, but in others it's not..engines and a proven airframe being a big part of that.
Whilst many on here clearly like the conceptual model of a specialy designed aircraft in this role it's worth remembering that the P3 was merely an adapted Electra...and look how successful that became.
The P8 is a compromise, but I think it's a better compromise given the length of time it's likely to be in service in NZ, particularly with respect again to airframes and engines over the entire length of the programme.
Just my 2 bobs worth.
|
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Jan 17, 2017 10:36:56 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. I've noticed a few enquiry about P8, I'll refer to an RAAF briefing. P-8 Poseidon – The Next Step in Maritime Patrol by Group Captain Roger McCutcheon An Air Power Seminar given at Canberra on 8 December 2015 "SAR [search and rescue] stores—I mentioned earlier that the aircraft is coming with an initial two life rafts that were developed for the Indian Navy because they’ve also got P-8s. A very different version to ours but that’s what it will initially come with. Out for tender now is the capability to deploy five 20-man life rafts from the bomb bay. And the bomb bay is back here. I think I’ve got a picture of that in a moment. Once we have that, what we’re calling the Objective SAR capability—five 20-man life rafts with overflow, with stores—will be a significant leap on what we can deploy now from the P-3." "So this is just a real quick snap of the size of it, a little bit wider and a little bit longer than the P-3. Some basic stats—again it will get out to on-task faster than the P-3. Being a jet, that’s not surprising. It also can go a little bit further and stay a little bit longer. Not significantly—we’re talking kind of 100-200 miles probably further and staying perhaps another hour or so on station. " "So this is quite a detailed slide but as it builds, [it shows] three times the strengtheners in the wing because of the low-level operations that the P-8 will do, or is doing now. There’s some perception out there that it’s a commercial airliner and it’s only going to be able to operate at a high level. That’s not true. It can operate down to 200 feet and has been designed to do that." "Right, so this is, I think, the last slide I’ve got, looking at ‘why do we need a maritime patrol force’ and I think it’s a great slide because in the middle you’ve got anti-submarine warfare [ASW]. I haven’t talked about that yet but that is one of the lesser-known but critical roles that the MPA force does. Submarines are a fantastic weapon system and I’m sure the Navy guys in the audience would agree. A submarine can do immense damage to a surface force. It’s also a fantastic intelligence-gathering platform vessel. So one way of countering that is with MPA at range deploying sonobuoys and using other sensors. Submarines are probably the best counter-submarine force, but MPA are a big part of it because of their reach. It does take a lot of assets though to patrol an area. To cover, say, a chokepoint for 24 hours, you’re talking probably six or so aircraft continuously doing that and that’s just one area. It’s also highly likely MPA would directly support/protect the force and protect the amphibious vessels et cetera. [ASW] is a skill that takes a lot of training. It’s not something you can drop and pick up quickly. It takes a lot of training and a generation, really, to build up those types of skills. We saw from the Middle East with the focus on the ISR work, that the ability to find, track and attack submarines suffered quite badly through those years. We kept training up as much as we could through the [use of] simulators and what exercises we had, but it did suffer and only recently is it starting to rebuild to the previous levels." |
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jan 17, 2017 16:01:27 GMT 12
As for dropping liferafts at speed, I wonder how many different options they try and destroy before getting it right.
|
|
|
|
Post by isc on Jan 17, 2017 20:49:38 GMT 12
I would seem from some reading on the P-8, that the proposal is for high altitude anti-submarine system (HAASW) to be used after they work out a system for a guided drop for torpedos from high altitude, 28,000ft. the advantage is that a wider search area at altitude that at low level, also greater fuel economy. The P-1 is designed for low altitude with a basically straight wing, and the 4 engines, 2 of which may be shut down on patrol, both aircraft have the same total thrust, P-1, 60,000 lb per engine, P-8 120,000 lb per engine.
Don't know about the P-1, but there are only 2 windows in the P-8, the crews call them day and night windows, the only ones that can see anything are the 2 in the front seat. I could see that removing windows would go a long way towards strengthening the airframe, and the USNs basic use is anti submarine, and the proposed HAASW system in place windows would not be much use.
isc
|
|
|
|
Post by noooby on Jan 18, 2017 4:56:41 GMT 12
isc, just talked to a former US Navy P-3 Flight Engineer work mate of mine. Air to Air refuelling never got past the prototype testing stage as far as he knows. Main problem for the crews wasn't who was going to refuel them, it was the capacity of the toilet on board!
|
|
|
|
Post by foxcover on Jan 18, 2017 8:32:54 GMT 12
I'm liking the idea of C-2's and P-1's, what would replace the B757's though? And what smaller airlifter would you choose?
|
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Jan 18, 2017 14:27:12 GMT 12
The C-2 is in the same class as a 757 replacement (payload, range and speed).
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 3, 2017 15:32:09 GMT 12
I must say that following a long history of making some of the best maritime patrol aircraft in the world, with the Hudson, Ventura, Harpoon, Neptune and Orion, it seems odd that Lockheed completely stopped building aircraft for this role, and that airliner manufacturers, Boeing, Airbus, etc, have taken over the role while Lockheed now seems to only make drones and fighters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2017 15:55:35 GMT 12
I also made a comment about that at work Dave, Lockheed definitely has the pedigree for MPA.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Feb 4, 2017 8:13:28 GMT 12
I must say that following a long history of making some of the best maritime patrol aircraft in the world, with the Hudson, Ventura, Harpoon, Neptune and Orion, it seems odd that Lockheed completely stopped building aircraft for this role, and that airliner manufacturers, Boeing, Airbus, etc, have taken over the role while Lockheed now seems to only make drones and fighters. Lockheed still have a very credible product in the maritime surveillance space (HC-130). They've also got products in other other specialised areas like SIGINT/ELINT/CAS. They just don't have a mature product in the maritime patrol space. If NZ was looking for a surface surveillance asset than I'd suggest the HC-130 would be a strong contender, but once you want to snot submarines there are very few credible options. SaveSave |
|
|
|
Post by dutchkiwi on Mar 1, 2017 2:10:18 GMT 12
|
|
?
