|
|
Post by machina on Dec 22, 2023 7:56:36 GMT 12
Strike Eagles have a back seat which fulfills the VIP transport role.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Dec 22, 2023 11:36:11 GMT 12
Strike Eagles have a back seat which fulfills the VIP transport role. B21's come with a loo, and a bit more leg room plus there's not as many refueling stops required. |
|
|
|
Post by Antonio on Dec 22, 2023 11:37:24 GMT 12
Strike Eagles have a back seat which fulfills the VIP transport role. With command ejection? |
|
chrisr
Squadron Leader
Posts: 134
|
Post by chrisr on Dec 22, 2023 16:54:04 GMT 12
My take on potential solutions:
- The 757's have this weird transport/cargo role. Split that in two by buying an extra C-130 to replace the Cargo capacity and then buy a smaller jet like the Dessault Falcon 7X (which the RAAF have) for PM travel. Possibly too small
- Buy or modify a 787 or two to a cargo configuration and operate it in tandem with Air NZ. There are rumours over the years that the 757 sitting idle has been detrimental to their maintenance. Having Air NZ use the unfulfilled capacity may reduce this issue. The other benefit being that the RNZAF will have a brand new airframe
- Buy second hand 737SF's with the same engine/fit as the P-8 so maintenance can be shared with that type. Work in a similar way to the 757s.
Of course money would put a stop to any of those ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by scrooge on Dec 22, 2023 17:18:34 GMT 12
If they've got a sim for the P-8's (I think they have?) go with a 737 variant that's compatible.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Dec 22, 2023 22:28:54 GMT 12
My take on potential solutions: - The 757's have this weird transport/cargo role. Split that in two by buying an extra C-130 to replace the Cargo capacity and then buy a smaller jet like the Dessault Falcon 7X (which the RAAF have) for PM travel. Possibly too small - Buy or modify a 787 or two to a cargo configuration and operate it in tandem with Air NZ. There are rumours over the years that the 757 sitting idle has been detrimental to their maintenance. Having Air NZ use the unfulfilled capacity may reduce this issue. The other benefit being that the RNZAF will have a brand new airframe - Buy second hand 737SF's with the same engine/fit as the P-8 so maintenance can be shared with that type. Work in a similar way to the 757s. Of course money would put a stop to any of those ideas. C-130 or even A400 is not going to offer the required payload range envelope. Neither is a B737 unless its got belly tanks, so a B737 freighter isn't going to work (the long range A320 designed to replace the B757 is also in the same boat). There is no 787 cargo version and it is unlikely to happen for at least decade if at all. Well used airliners really don't like sitting, easiest fix is to simply don't attempt to be cheap airframes. Parts commonality percentage between the P-8 and the 737NG series is given as 86%, anyone seen an operating cost model for running both types, the 14% difference in parts could be all the cheap reliable parts or the unreliable expensive bits. For a VIP transport, they could just buy a P-8 like the VIP transport P-3. As for operating costs of a 737NG this a pretty good guide for civilian reg operating costs. pdfslide.us/documents/owners-operators-guide-737ng.html?page=1 |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 22, 2023 23:03:10 GMT 12
There are a few Dakotas in NZ looking for work, put them back into service to carry round the polluticians.
|
|
chrisr
Squadron Leader
Posts: 134
|
Post by chrisr on Dec 23, 2023 8:45:25 GMT 12
C-130 or even A400 is not going to offer the required payload range envelope. Neither is a B737 unless its got belly tanks, so a B737 freighter isn't going to work (the long range A320 designed to replace the B757 is also in the same boat). There is no 787 cargo version and it is unlikely to happen for at least decade if at all. One of the biggest mistakes this country has made is not purchasing C-17's when we had the chance. The interoperability with the USA and Australia, ability to travel to the Antarctic, carry the NH-90 would have allowed us to make a more than meaningful contribution to regional responsibilities. |
|
|
|
Post by joey05 on Dec 23, 2023 10:14:11 GMT 12
Definity need something designed for Military to bypass all the issues we have had with the B757 with the low utilization. If we went down the A321LR or the likes we would eventually have similar issues. I wonder how the A330MRTs are holding up? Perhaps the Kawasaki C2 or Embraer KC390 are now options but would need 3 as I wouldn't think they are mature enough platforms to only have 2 on strength. A330 base would at least have commonality with Oz so can use them for training and support (and knowledge). Either way someone needs to get a chequebook out (or a bank transfer these days!).
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 23, 2023 11:13:57 GMT 12
As the military is so much smaller now than when we first added Boeings to the transport fleet in 1981, and we have whizzy-do bigger C-130J's coming, do we even need to replace the Boeings? Just retire them, and get some pax seats for one of the Hercules, like the days up till 1981 when we got the first Boeings. Anything else should go by Air NZ or other charter. Save some money.
|
|
|
|
Post by delticman on Dec 23, 2023 14:51:30 GMT 12
C-130 or even A400 is not going to offer the required payload range envelope. Neither is a B737 unless its got belly tanks, so a B737 freighter isn't going to work (the long range A320 designed to replace the B757 is also in the same boat). There is no 787 cargo version and it is unlikely to happen for at least decade if at all. One of the biggest mistakes this country has made is not purchasing C-17's when we had the chance. The interoperability with the USA and Australia, ability to travel to the Antarctic, carry the NH-90 would have allowed us to make a more than meaningful contribution to regional responsibilities. I'm sure if we had two C.17's they would come up with the same problems as the B757's, not enough running. The media and others moan about the old aircraft but have they counted how many are used by the US Government. What is needed is some sideways thinking with some of our defence partners and use the them on Singapore-Australia-NZ-Hawai'i. Just an idea. Think I'd rather fly in a 757 than crossing Cook Strait in any of the ferries, |
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Dec 26, 2023 16:39:47 GMT 12
C-130 or even A400 is not going to offer the required payload range envelope. Neither is a B737 unless its got belly tanks, so a B737 freighter isn't going to work (the long range A320 designed to replace the B757 is also in the same boat). There is no 787 cargo version and it is unlikely to happen for at least decade if at all. One of the biggest mistakes this country has made is not purchasing C-17's when we had the chance. The interoperability with the USA and Australia, ability to travel to the Antarctic, carry the NH-90 would have allowed us to make a more than meaningful contribution to regional responsibilities. The only way C-17's would have made sense is if we operated a joint squadron with the RAAF, they are even more odd ball than the B757 in this part of the world. For the ranges we operate at, civilian makes more sense than would most military airframes, the 757 biggest problem is there is a global shortage of them, we should have brought newer examples (this would have greatly improved the reliability rate) and we didn't put the money into maintaining a sufficient spares pool to support them. |
|
|
|
Post by StuArmourer on Feb 21, 2024 5:10:06 GMT 12
C17s could also be used for air to air refueling and to fight bush fires. But trusting NZ politicians to do the smart thing is a loosing bet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 21, 2024 14:00:02 GMT 12
C17s could also be used for air to air refueling and to fight bush fires. But trusting NZ politicians to do the smart thing is a loosing bet. C-17's can't tank other aircraft to my knowledge and I've not seen them used for fire fighting either.... |
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Feb 21, 2024 15:55:03 GMT 12
C17s could also be used for air to air refueling and to fight bush fires. But trusting NZ politicians to do the smart thing is a loosing bet. C-17's can't tank other aircraft to my knowledge and I've not seen them used for fire fighting either.... I think I saw a report of one back-fuelling a tanker recently. |
|
|
|
Post by StuArmourer on Feb 22, 2024 1:36:02 GMT 12
Bushfires are a major threat to the Australian environment and is the most dangerous
natural hazard in terms of risk to human life [1]. Bushfires can originate from both human
activity and natural causes with lightning as the predominant natural source, accounting for
about half of all ignitions in Australia [2]. The damage due to bushfire costs on average $1.6
billion a year [2]. To reduce the loss of life and property damage, an effective firefighting
capability and operations must be implemented. In this project several alternatives were
proposed and compared against, for example, drop frequency, drop volume, cost, complexity,
etc. The outcome of this study was a proposal to design a system to convert an RAAF C-17
Globemaster to a firefighting role; in accordance to an agreement that falls under the banner
of a Military Operation to Civil Power system [3]. A key benefit of this concept is the use of
existing aerial systems. The aircraft can be refitted with a fire retardant/water tank
arrangement, as shown in Fig. 1; which is easily installed as per normal cargo loading
operations. The C-17 aircraft was decided upon as it has the payload capacity to meet the
design requirement of 10,000 gallons (37,854 L/kg of water; C-17 has a payload capacity of
77,519 kg) [4]. Loading ramp capacity is limited to 18,144kg, thus the tank system is build-up
from individual tanks which are connected and latched securely, and feeding to a common
fire-tank based hose connection system at the rear of the aircraft. This is where the conceptual
and novel incorporation of an aerial refilling system of fire retardant has been considered
within the C-17 role support system for the purpose of assisting and air-to air refilling of
smaller to medium range firefighting airtankers during operations
|
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 22, 2024 13:41:29 GMT 12
C-17's can't tank other aircraft to my knowledge and I've not seen them used for fire fighting either.... I think I saw a report of one back-fuelling a tanker recently. What is back filling? Pumping from the C-17 back through the probe to the tanker? Never thought that was possible |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 22, 2024 13:42:23 GMT 12
Bushfires are a major threat to the Australian environment and is the most dangerous natural hazard in terms of risk to human life [1]. Bushfires can originate from both human activity and natural causes with lightning as the predominant natural source, accounting for about half of all ignitions in Australia [2]. The damage due to bushfire costs on average $1.6 billion a year [2]. To reduce the loss of life and property damage, an effective firefighting capability and operations must be implemented. In this project several alternatives were proposed and compared against, for example, drop frequency, drop volume, cost, complexity, etc. The outcome of this study was a proposal to design a system to convert an RAAF C-17 Globemaster to a firefighting role; in accordance to an agreement that falls under the banner of a Military Operation to Civil Power system [3]. A key benefit of this concept is the use of existing aerial systems. The aircraft can be refitted with a fire retardant/water tank arrangement, as shown in Fig. 1; which is easily installed as per normal cargo loading operations. The C-17 aircraft was decided upon as it has the payload capacity to meet the design requirement of 10,000 gallons (37,854 L/kg of water; C-17 has a payload capacity of 77,519 kg) [4]. Loading ramp capacity is limited to 18,144kg, thus the tank system is build-up from individual tanks which are connected and latched securely, and feeding to a common fire-tank based hose connection system at the rear of the aircraft. This is where the conceptual and novel incorporation of an aerial refilling system of fire retardant has been considered within the C-17 role support system for the purpose of assisting and air-to air refilling of smaller to medium range firefighting airtankers during operations So a concept. it doesn't actually exist? And a long way from actually existing. |
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Feb 22, 2024 14:01:30 GMT 12
I think I saw a report of one back-fuelling a tanker recently. What is back filling? Pumping from the C-17 back through the probe to the tanker? Never thought that was possible Yes, I can't remember the technical term used, but it was a test reported in the last few weeks. |
|
|
|
Post by machina on Mar 5, 2024 7:01:37 GMT 12
So with the 757 not being able to take the PM to Aussie this morning, and the govts repeated comments around flying commercial instead, how much longer will the 757 be in service?
|
|
