|
|
Post by madmac on Aug 9, 2022 13:10:59 GMT 12
My suggestion is to buy a couple of P-8 airframes and fit removable interiors .That would cut down the aircraft types and would allow for cannibalization to allow the P-8 to keep operating There's already a milspec 737 pax/cargo variant as well pax/VIP variant. Look up C40. C40 would still likely cost more over the life cycle as there would be greater flight deck / airfame differnaces, plus you can't use a C40 as feed stock for building a replacement P-8. A cargo P-8 would have a much better payload range than a C40, as is the p-8 has a 6000 lb payload advantage & that is without all the crap that wouldn't be fitted to a cargo version. Operationally a P-8 cargo would make the perfect source to rob spares from when depoyed / ferry additional flight crew. Although we would really need a 3rd airframe to allow us to get the best out of the P-8 fleet (2 for transport work, 1 for circult trainer / 5 sqn support). |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Aug 9, 2022 14:56:36 GMT 12
C17 would be the best bet for strategic airlift, but MRTT would make more sense in that it can refuel the P8. This is the most sensible reply in this entire thread. Most of the others are silly (I'm being polite)  |
|
|
|
Post by kiwirob on Aug 12, 2022 19:16:17 GMT 12
C17 would be the best bet for strategic airlift, but MRTT would make more sense in that it can refuel the P8. This is the most sensible reply in this entire thread. Most of the others are silly (I'm being polite) 50% sensible, you can't buy a C17, they don't make them anymore and those that have them aren't going to sell any to NZ. A couple of MRTT's would be a great but expensive choice. |
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Aug 12, 2022 20:01:16 GMT 12
Replacement needs to be electric so the pollies can ride in green heaven and tell us about all the emissions they have saved tripping around the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Aug 12, 2022 22:22:18 GMT 12
There isn't a lot of quality anaylsis for the replacement fo the B757's. So here are some operating costs, noting that one can't really compare the costs between the ADF & DOD because of accounting methodigy. From the RNZAF perspective their fleets are typically sub crtical mass, so cost will be much higher than the ADF & DOD and are dominated by fixed costs such as min spares holding, min staffing for airframe knowlege, etc. The role really requires 2 airframe types, heavy lift transport and VIP transport but that isn't likely to happen unless they can add to an existing airframe pool or lease ZK reg aircraft. However as the freighter market is running red hot, the operating costs of the B757s will likley be climbing rapidly and a long lead time of a conversion of a civilian airframe. I haven't found any decent cost data for the C2 or A400 or for RNZAF operating cost data. Anyone seen a cost number for adding an extra type to the airforce.
Hourly operating costs Looking at these costs I would say the KC-46A is a quite a possibly, assuming they are willing to fork out for new airframes. its payload range envolope exceeds that of the C17. While the program is crap, if they can make the NH90 work, why not the KC-46A, it doesn't look likely they will can the KC-46A program. The USAF appears unlikely to give up a couple of C-17's given the pivot to the pacfic. Otherwise I would pick a 767 combi conversion (will digout the payload range diagram of the possibilities). The KC-30A is nice but looks to run 50% more cost wise than the KC-30A and would require adding yet another OEM to the spares holding (its unlikey that there is much comminality in hardware between the NH90 and the airbus airframes).
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 13, 2022 10:25:39 GMT 12
Some of those figures are eyewatering.
Why does the P-8 cost double that of a C-40 an hour when they are based on the same airframe? Is that taking into account the cost of the extra crew? Or perhaps maintaining the avionics?
|
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Aug 13, 2022 14:48:02 GMT 12
Some of those figures are eyewatering. Why does the P-8 cost double that of a C-40 an hour when they are based on the same airframe? Is that taking into account the cost of the extra crew? Or perhaps maintaining the avionics? I guess so, those 7 mission specialists probadly cost a lot more to train & keep than a loadmaster or a flight attendant. The electrical power comsumption of the P-8 is double that of the C-40, thats going to warm up a few avonics boxes. Also I guess that those costs include comsumables like sonar bouys as well, plus fuel burn will likely be higher due to the lower operating altitcude |
|
|
|
Post by scrooge on Aug 13, 2022 16:20:36 GMT 12
Plus corrosion prevention and maintenance for low level maritime use.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 13, 2022 16:31:04 GMT 12
Very good points.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Aug 13, 2022 22:25:24 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by machina on Aug 13, 2022 23:33:42 GMT 12
I know we probably can’t afford it as a capability but I think refuelling would be good to have given the amount of ocean we fly over/monitor and the connection with Antarctica.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 14, 2022 14:30:04 GMT 12
With the production of the C-17 all finished, is Boeing actually working on a project for a replacement type in the future? Is Lockheed working on a new design tp replace the Starlifter or Galaxy?
Or are the only options in large tactical transports of the future going to be the Embraer, Kawasaki or the Airbus?
|
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Aug 14, 2022 22:21:55 GMT 12
I can't find a reference to any cargo aircraft programs except for the stealth tanker. There maybe a life extension / re-engining program coming for the C-17 given the current out of service date for the C-17 is mid 2030's. I have updated the payload range diagram I did several years ago to include the KC46 & KC30 (best guesses really). It should be noted that the KC30 is limited to 37 ton on the lower deck and what ever can fit through the passenger doors for the main deck. The KC46 is limited to cargo on the main deck only and is limited to 29.5 ton but has a larger cross section than the KC30 lower deck. The Payload range for the KC46 is a lot less than the B767 because of the permanent tanks in the lower hold. The narrow bodys B737 and A320 are simply too small for flights to the ice.   |
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Aug 15, 2022 9:56:22 GMT 12
Some of those figures are eyewatering. Why does the P-8 cost double that of a C-40 an hour when they are based on the same airframe? Is that taking into account the cost of the extra crew? Or perhaps maintaining the avionics? I guess so, those 7 mission specialists probadly cost a lot more to train & keep than a loadmaster or a flight attendant. The electrical power comsumption of the P-8 is double that of the C-40, thats going to warm up a few avonics boxes. Also I guess that those costs include comsumables like sonar bouys as well, plus fuel burn will likely be higher due to the lower operating altitcude Yes I wonder if crew costs are factored into this table. I know the P8 has a skin double the thickness of a 'standard' B737 and of course the wing / fuse combination is unique to the P8 so it must certainly have a very different all up weight that will likely involve an increased fuel-burn. I'm not sure of the engines on a C40 vs P8 but that I guess is also a key area for comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Aug 15, 2022 10:21:17 GMT 12
I guess the NZDF / MinDef etc may have 'sent a letter' but I'd think it'd be very cursory at this stage given the B757 replacement project has been pushed back to approx 2028 & therefore I dare say hasn't got off the ground yet (excuse the pun!). Having said that who knows if behind the scenes Govt is considering pulling the project forward again but I somehow find that difficult to believe. I'm a firm believer the B757 replacement must have a combo option... the KC46 tanker has I think 100 seat capacity but it's a hugely expensive beast to use for a purely pax run with 100 pax... so unless it offers a half / full cabin pax option plus underfloor freight I'm not a fan. Whilst I would dearly love to see a RNZAF KC46 tanker the above points do still apply IMHO as tanking isn't likely to be given a high priority by Govt. Whilst it could be used to 'tank' something smaller to the ice it'd be better off to get something that can itself make the ice & back... but then the points above about combo capacity etc apply outside of the ice runs. On the subject of ice runs... we all believe the B757 replacement will be capable of a return flight without touchdown... but I wonder if it's now more 'preferred' than a non-negotiable requirement. If the latter is true then why would we continue to use C130 & B757 now... they could continue with the C130J one-way if they felt they really had to so that then suggests to me it's unlikely tanking will be a drop-dead of the B757 replacement (yes agreed it is a preferable capability tho!). Another option may be the A330-MRTT as per the RAAF but I'm fairly certain there's (standard MRTT) do not have a strengthened floor so only has pax role in the cabin and with tanks underfloor it's freight capacity must be limited!?! Of course one of the key requirements of the B757 replacement will be the ability to operate to/from as many south pacific island states as possible...that also puts yet another set of blinkers on the requirement, so it seems whatever replaces the B757 it's going to involve compromise...nothing new there for the RNZAF! I'd also say that project must be stretched to 3 operational airframes. Good luck to the project team trying to tick all the boxes! |
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Aug 15, 2022 17:32:41 GMT 12
There are still some ex-Air New Zealand 767s in the desert at Alice Springs...
|
|
|
|
Post by machina on Aug 15, 2022 18:32:45 GMT 12
Do the Americans have C-17s more or less permanently based here for runs to the ice? If so let’s offer to buy them and part of the deal is we keep giving them a lift when required.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Aug 15, 2022 21:55:34 GMT 12
On the subject of ice runs... we all believe the B757 replacement will be capable of a return flight without touchdown... but I wonder if it's now more 'preferred' than a non-negotiable requirement. Given how close they came to the RNZAF being responsible for the 2nd largest air accident in NZ history, and that the ice flights are a quasi airline operation for which the civilian passengers should reasonably expect part 121 (airline operations) equivalent levels of safety, return flight without touchdown is the only way to achieve the require levels of safety. Does anyone know where the 100 seat limit for the KC-46 comes from, is it just because they only currently use the C-17 seat pallets, a safety equipment issue or did they block some of the exit windows? The use of 2nd hand civilian airframes is not a simple issue. The older airframes will have worked hard and tend to become unreliable unless flown very frequently (8 hours plus a day sort of thing) where as the RNZAF might do 20 hours a week if that and engines and systems tend to be come problematic in there reliability. Also because military aircraft parts can't be used by civilian reg aircraft parts become never cheap or simple. When a civilian operator needs an overhauled unit they do a core swap, they get sent the overhauled unit and after removing their unit in need of overhaul it is sent back. The RNZAF can't do this, either they buy the unit out right, or pull it from the airframe and then send it of overhaul, unless they have a unit on the shelve from a parted out aircraft (like the 3rd 727). |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 15, 2022 22:47:22 GMT 12
Do the Americans have C-17s more or less permanently based here for runs to the ice? If so let’s offer to buy them and part of the deal is we keep giving them a lift when required. The US aircraft that base of of Operation Deep Freeze at Harewood are only in New Zealand for the summer season, then return to their main base/s. I think the C-17's are based in Hawaii when not in New Zealand? A good idea otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Aug 16, 2022 17:47:45 GMT 12
Some of those figures are eyewatering. Why does the P-8 cost double that of a C-40 an hour when they are based on the same airframe? Is that taking into account the cost of the extra crew? Or perhaps maintaining the avionics? You should see the Helicopter costs..... The KC-46A figure looks a little optimistic |
|
