tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post3958120573424810385..comments2024-03-28T21:57:32.099+11:00Comments on Submarine Matters & Australian Nuclear Weapons: SubMatt's Prediction of 4 x P-8s for New Zealand's MPA Buy Seems on MoneyPete2http://www.blogger.com/profile/06134037393078707072noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-86620797801252181702017-05-10T17:24:04.987+10:002017-05-10T17:24:04.987+10:00Dear Pete,
maybe there is another option for New Z...Dear Pete,<br />maybe there is another option for New Zealand.<br />Price for a P-8 is about $125 million. A C-295 is about $30 million. Next huge factor is operational costs. Australia has the P-8 and New Zealand should bring something else to the table. New Zealand also has no fighter jets. <br /><br />Strange thing about the P-8 is time in the air. The 737 is a fast jet. So range is good at 4,500 nm but due to a cruise speed of 440 kn flying time is just about 10 hours while the C-295 with a 2,900 nm range and a cruise speed of 260 kn flies for 11 hours. <br /><br />I think one additional Australian KC-30A for New Zealand would be enough. Several NATO members (The Netherlands, Luxembourg, Poland, Germany, Belgium and Norway) are going to use a common tanker fleet. New Zealand could on the other side "lease" C-295 for coastal patrol to Australia and get in return some Australian P-8.<br /><br />Regards,<br />MHalblaubMHalblaubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14234020711635190127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-40418008086402865642017-05-10T16:23:56.035+10:002017-05-10T16:23:56.035+10:00Hi Pete
Operational performance is a measure of r...Hi Pete<br /><br />Operational performance is a measure of reliability, ie, degree of evasion of responsibility in purchasing. In the case of plane crash, if there is operational performance, authorities try to avoid their responsibility by insisting that though they selected aircraft according to proper purchasing procedure, they were tricked by manufacturer of maritime patrol aircraft (MPA). But, if there is not operational performance, evasion of responsibility in purchasing is difficult.<br /><br />In terms of reliability based on operational performance, Boeing P-8 and Kawasaki P-1 are better options than non exsiting Airbus MPA.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-5854237085096482452017-05-10T09:22:32.162+10:002017-05-10T09:22:32.162+10:00Hi MHalblaub [at 10/5/17 8:28 AM]
The age of the ...Hi MHalblaub [at 10/5/17 8:28 AM]<br /><br />The age of the 757s and use by Australia of the A330MRTT <br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT#Australia are certainly arguments favouring 2 New Zealand A330MRTTs.<br /><br />The A330MRTT has the maximum range: 14,800 km (8,000 nmi, 9,200 mi) to meet New Zealand's Christchurch to Antartica and back requirement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT#Specifications<br /><br />New Zealand always seems to wind up in the same theatres of war as Australia, including Iraq, where Australian A330MRTTs are in use.<br /><br />Only thing is Airbus aircraft aren't useful as sweeteners in any New Zealand Boeing P8 deal.<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-25919704151294101742017-05-10T08:28:18.932+10:002017-05-10T08:28:18.932+10:00Dear Pete,
youngest 757-200 is about 18 years old...Dear Pete,<br /><br />youngest 757-200 is about 18 years old. Just some 757-300 are only a little bit older than 12 years. So used 757-200 are no option. <br /><br />Here official Boeing data (see PDF page 41): http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/757_23.pdf<br />Here is an interesting comparison chart: http://oi57.tinypic.com/5pof8z.jpg<br /><br />The 757-200 has a slightly higher payload but at about 3,700 nm the A321LR can carry more payload due to lower fuel burn! <br /><br />A 737MAX could be an option but a main deck cargo door and floor would be required because the 737 just like the 757 can't handle container. An A321 with 3 auxiliary fuel tanks could carry about 7 LD3-45 containers. Without the need for a main deck cargo floor normal seating could be used. That will make an A321LR cheaper than a 737MAX for Royal New Zealand Air Force.<br /><br />Same reason why most air forces did buy the A330MRTT instead of the 767. The 767 needs main deck cargo to transport any cargo while the A330 has a free lower cargo bay. <br /><br />Maybe New Zealand could lease one KC-30 from Australia or AirTanker in case a big aircraft is required. <br /><br />Regards,<br />MHalblaubMHalblaubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14234020711635190127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-30106797086988071322017-05-09T11:53:53.410+10:002017-05-09T11:53:53.410+10:00Hi MHalblaub
Nothing like healthy Boeing vs Airbu...Hi MHalblaub<br /><br />Nothing like healthy Boeing vs Airbus competition.<br /><br />According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757#Government.2C_military.2C_and_corporate :<br />"Royal New Zealand Air Force 757 Combi – the Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) operates two 757s converted to 757-200M standard by ST Aerospace Services for delivering equipment, medical evacuation, troop movements, and VIP transport.[160][161] A cargo door, upgraded auxiliary power unit, enhanced communications systems, and retractable airstairs are fitted.[161] The two aircraft, which replaced two 727-100QCs,[161] have carried the Prime Minister of New Zealand,[162] as well as flown to the ice-covered Pegasus Field near New Zealand's Scott Base in McMurdo Sound, Antarctica.[163]"<br /><br />No new 757s are being built but there may be a used 757 market highly advantageous to RNZAF customer. The main 757 disadvantage may be limited range unless a used 757 is modified to carry an in-body fuel tank.<br /><br />757 range - maybe up to 7,000 kms depending on payload https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757#Specifications looks limited.<br /><br />Maybe the Airbus A321LR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A321#A321LR you mention can travel 8,000+ kms with reduced payload?<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-40017989165168127102017-05-09T08:43:55.529+10:002017-05-09T08:43:55.529+10:00Dear Pete,
many airlines will replace the 757 wit...Dear Pete,<br /><br />many airlines will replace the 757 with A321LR. The A320-series can even accommodate small LD3-45 containers. <br /><br />So there is no need to replace a 757 with a 777. A far cheaper solution compared to a 777 would be an A330-200. The A330MRTT / KC-30 is based on that model. Even a used A330 from Qantas would be OK for rare military use. <br /><br />The advantage for A321LR is, Air New Zealand already is operating A320. So the logistics would be easy.<br /><br />Regards,<br />MHalblaubMHalblaubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14234020711635190127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-52294850796573523702017-05-06T11:13:29.705+10:002017-05-06T11:13:29.705+10:00Hi Ztev
True that a 777-200ER at about 300,000kg ...Hi Ztev<br /><br />True that a 777-200ER at about 300,000kg (MTOW) [1] would be a massive unneeded upgrade over the around 120,000kg (MTOW) 757 [2]. So a Boeing similar to the weight of a 757 is probably the go - as long as it has the safe Antarctica and back extended range.<br /><br />[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777#Specifications<br /><br />[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757#Specifications<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />Pete<br /><br /><br />Petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-48042551315514713182017-05-06T06:41:38.007+10:002017-05-06T06:41:38.007+10:00If the RNZAF is getting the P-8 then there will ne...If the RNZAF is getting the P-8 then there will need to be runway upgrades regardless and a B-777 combo would then be just as feasible.<br /><br />The P-8 and P-3 are apples and oranges. If the RNZAF wants to find a replacement capable of support to regional disasters and emergencies, they may need to look further than the P-8.Webbed_Apteryxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-43932402574486662832017-05-05T11:25:57.159+10:002017-05-05T11:25:57.159+10:00I dont see NZ going for a 777 sized plane for its ...I dont see NZ going for a 777 sized plane for its Airforce, the weight issues restricts the runways they can use in NZ. The 757 can make it to Mcmurdo and turn around but only with passengers and not freight but maybe the US navy Boeing C40 version would be a choice for the 757 replacement<br />Saving money would suggest the best bang for bucks is Boeings Challenger executive jet based MPA. Remember too this is election year and all sorts of things are waved in front of voters that wont necessarily appear after the votes are counted.<br />A new Defence minister has just taken office, hes a combat veteran from Iraq - unusually as security contractor- and may move the funding in favour of the soldiers on the ground rather than the usual way the Airforce and navy gang up on the Army in these matters.Ztev Konradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06553128132098513643noreply@blogger.com