|
Post by isc on Jan 7, 2019 21:19:05 GMT 12
How many times a year do the P-3K2 operate from Kaitaia? isc
|
|
|
Post by camtech on Jan 8, 2019 11:57:37 GMT 12
How many times a year do the P-3K2 operate from Kaitaia? isc Or really how many times have they operated from Kaitaia in 50 plus years? Get real.
|
|
|
Post by isc on Jan 8, 2019 13:51:38 GMT 12
My guess is never, and why would they, think of all the gear they wold need to be opperational there, when they are less than an hour from Auckland. It would make more sence if they set up a tempory base in Dunedin, or Invercargil, to opperate out of to cover the reagion south of NZ.isc
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Jan 8, 2019 16:46:37 GMT 12
I can see this turning into a repeat of the NH90 - lots of uninformed people (plenty of whom should have known better) moaning that it can't do SAR. Nevermind that SAR can generally be done cheaper and faster by a civil operator. These machines are there for maritime domain awareness with a secondary strike function. I don't give too hoots if they don't do SAR that well.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jan 8, 2019 18:49:27 GMT 12
My guess is never, and why would they, think of all the gear they wold need to be opperational there, when they are less than an hour from Auckland. It would make more sence if they set up a tempory base in Dunedin, or Invercargil, to opperate out of to cover the reagion south of NZ.isc They have on occasions used Dunedin as a base to do southern patrols for toothfish
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jan 8, 2019 20:58:34 GMT 12
I always thought the RNZAF was a military organisation that was flexible? The P3K could operate from Kaitaia and about 30 OTHER AIRPORTS in NZ as needed at MTOW even in the wet. Currently the P8 can operate under those conditions from 2, Auckland and Christchurch Airports neither of which is a designated base. If Ohakea is extended by 400M like Edinburgh and Townsville in Australia then that would be fine or if NZ coughs up for some tankers but how likely is that? For the record the P8 will be fuel/payload limited at Dunedin as well, also Invercargill, Wellington, Woodbourne (a bit tight anyway) Palmerston North, Tauranga and Hamilton. As for the others which the P3 could get in and out of in a breeze, forget them. Seems to me flexibility will be a heavily reduced asset for the RNZAF in future. As long as the P8's are not expected to drop torpedoes or depth charges in the real shooting war things will be fine!
|
|
madmark
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 78
|
Post by madmark on Jan 8, 2019 21:36:35 GMT 12
I guess we will have to wait to see the P8 flying at 100 knots at 200 feet which is what the P3 has done in the past. Keep that nose down and cross your legs as stalling is NOT an option. P-3 at 100kts, interesting...
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jan 8, 2019 23:12:47 GMT 12
Yacht race to Tonga, 1996 I believe Flaps down 70 Knot plus winds 20 Metre plus waves Altitude 200 feet Poor visibility which is why low flying was required In one case the P3 had to stay in visual contact with a yacht with no radio and in which the life raft had been ripped and blown away That was just one of about half a dozen yachts which sank and which were located and had over watch by P3s and a C130. Rescues were effected for all but one boat which sank without trace although an empty raft was found Without the RNZAF there would have been none. Their assistance was acknowledged by a US Senator as several boats were from the US However if you are confident the P8 could do this if required?
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Jan 9, 2019 6:48:13 GMT 12
Well I guess we will find out in due course I guess. I am finding much of this discussion pointless. How often does a P-3 operate at MAUW out of regional NZ airports? Bugger all or never would be the answer. Same for carrying a full load of live weapons (never).
The decision has been made, move on people.
|
|
|
Post by pepe on Jan 9, 2019 8:32:03 GMT 12
Once upon a time there might have even been people who complained that the replacement for the Sunderland couldn't land on water... That seemed to work out just fine.
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Jan 9, 2019 9:53:11 GMT 12
Indeed there WERE people who complained bitterly that the RNZAF's Sunderlands could ONLY be replaced by a flying boat, citing all the air-sea rescues they had carried out over the years, and also pointing out that hardly any of the islands in the South Pacific had an airfield worthy of the name (with exception of Fiji, and maybe Norfolk Island). David D
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jan 9, 2019 10:01:17 GMT 12
Well the irony there was the Sunderland was not capable of landing on the open ocean other than in very calm circumstances, and it certainly was not standard practice to do so, despite what people might imagine.
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Jan 9, 2019 14:30:29 GMT 12
I always thought the RNZAF was a military organisation that was flexible? The P3K could operate from Kaitaia and about 30 OTHER AIRPORTS in NZ as needed at MTOW even in the wet. Currently the P8 can operate under those conditions from 2, Auckland and Christchurch Airports neither of which is a designated base. If Ohakea is extended by 400M like Edinburgh and Townsville in Australia then that would be fine or if NZ coughs up for some tankers but how likely is that? For the record the P8 will be fuel/payload limited at Dunedin as well, also Invercargill, Wellington, Woodbourne (a bit tight anyway) Palmerston North, Tauranga and Hamilton. As for the others which the P3 could get in and out of in a breeze, forget them. Seems to me flexibility will be a heavily reduced asset for the RNZAF in future. As long as the P8's are not expected to drop torpedoes or depth charges in the real shooting war things will be fine! I'm starting to think you're trolling. However, I'm at a loss to think of any scenarios where P-8 would need to operate at MAAW from New Zealand. MAAW includes over 10,000lbs of weapons, which is more than 6 Harpoon missiles or more than 15 Mk54 torpedoesIf you think flexibility is exclusively related to where aircraft can take off from (never mind the need for support infrastructure), then perhaps 5 Squadron should be equipped with Cessna 172s....
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Jan 9, 2019 16:13:32 GMT 12
Now were talking something the Treasury will like. After all arming Cessnas has been done before (by Rhodesians). 00002773 by tankienz, on Flickr We will need a few tanker versions as well.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Jan 9, 2019 17:02:00 GMT 12
Well I guess we will find out in due course I guess. I am finding much of this discussion pointless. How often does a P-3 operate at MAUW out of regional NZ airports? Bugger all or never would be the answer. Same for carrying a full load of live weapons (never). The decision has been made, move on people. For a whole host of reasons, New Zealand is grossly ill-prepared for a future wartime emergency. This includes airbases and related logistical infrastructure. But unless a worse case scenario develops, how this epic blunder plays out remains is yet to be seen.
|
|
|
Post by machina on Jan 9, 2019 20:06:03 GMT 12
We will need a few tanker versions as well. KC-172s?
|
|
|
Post by isc on Jan 9, 2019 21:54:52 GMT 12
How about A/C-180-185 with bomb racks, we could fence the enemy in after dropping posts and fencing wire.isc
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Jan 9, 2019 21:58:18 GMT 12
No,they'd take a fence, lets build a wall!
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jan 9, 2019 22:12:09 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Jan 9, 2019 22:17:06 GMT 12
How about A/C-180-185 with bomb racks, we could fence the enemy in after dropping posts and fencing wire.isc Fitted with floats, we're onto a winner!
|
|