I wouldn't discount the air to air refueling capability (both dispensing and receiving) option because it is one of the questions in the RFIs. If, by some miracle, it was decided to acquire that capability, the KC46 option would most likely be the preferable one, simply because of cost. There is a significant difference in cost between the two platforms.
It was my understanding fully loaded in the context of the article as I recall it that it had full fuel load and load out in weapons etc.
Very few aircraft (I cannot at the moment think of any)can do the above. there is always a compromise.you have an empty weight (in this case 67730 KG) and a max all up weight that is defined by the structural strength of the aircraft.( in this case 85820 kg)there is some times an overload allowance but this is very restrictive on maneuverability In the P8 case the max fuel load is (depending on temp ) actually slightly more than the difference between empty and full weights. the difference between the weights is known as max disposable load. and it is a matter of configuring your aircraft within this parameter. This is why you see range payload figures quoted, because as you add more load you have to deduct fuel.
I think that the navies tanker replacement will take pressure of our air bridge contribution from our Antarctic partners, This could have been a reason for the no go on the C17 as cabinet have been briefed on what was happening in that field and would have talked to our Antarctic partners before proceeding down this direction.
Not just the P8, all transports have an option to receive AAR which could be a handy option for Antarctica.
There are none within range for them to land at. Maybe the Australian one but I don't know where it is in relation too, or how far it is from McMurdo or whether or not the B757 would be able to get in there. I am aware that the RAAF have operated C17s out of it but the C17 has capabilities that the B757 doesn't. For example I have seen USAF C17s flying into and out of Timaru. I don't know if the B757 could do that.
Pretty much at the time we were looking at the wrong answer to the wrong question in the first place - an Andover replacement because we were historically tied to it. Thinking that is the capability gap and thus therefore that 'airframe' is the logical solution. But it was not what all the evidence via budgets / taskings / planning / platform mix and future solutions in an holistic sense threw back. It has not been since the DWP/10 that the thinking changed once Defence policy was re-orientated. We all found out something new and changed. Taking onboard the counter arguments and new rationales and learning from it.
In these situations the RNZAF is out of the box due to proximity and informs other partners principally the ADF and the totalised response is co-ordinated at a whole of Govt level between involved Govts and I might add the more respected NGO's who contribute.
That happens promptly enough but getting the correct evidence fast and unhindered using P-3's usually (or B200's in some cases noted due to P-3's not being available or on other taskings) actually speeds up the over all response in a co-ordinated focused way. Getting the right resources in a timely fashion to the right place is methodology.
I have no issue with that and it is a very valid idea for it to be fitted to any tactical lifter which as the recent RFI notes of being no less a capability than the C-130's we have at present. That is the multi-role platform that makes sense following years of evidence, experience informed by the air mobility study that has been conducted not a smaller twin.
Opinions are challenged and critiqued on DT. And yes people here actually have particular knowledge and expertise and freely reality check said opinions. But if you are not interested in reading a critique of an opinion that is counter to ones own and using that to inform yourself further and participate further that is your choice.
Yes no doubt the tanker will assist as it can carry 12 TEU with the project director stating (in Navy News article) another 8 'could be added' - presumably to the block aft of the crane (ie: 8 x 2 high). That's 20 TEU of freight no longer needing to be moved by C130 which must be a significant gain - arguably say 10+ less flights? (depending on weight vs volume comparisons etc etc).
1,150 nm (1,319 sm) great circle Pegasus Field to Wilkins Ice Runway.
Thanks for that. Well I suppose that solves that problem then doesn't it. It's over half the great circle distance between Christchurch and McMurdo (2,079 nm) and the same as Christchurch to Sydney. McMurdo to the Pole is 726 nm. Interesting and it's 2,800 nm (3,222 sm) from the Pole to Christchurch. Some trivia.
I suggested it as a point to be discussed. We don't need twin engineed turbo props and they would be a fiscal liability. Twin engined turbo prop airlifters are not a good investment for a defence force with limited funding and who has to fly a minimum of 1000 nautical miles across open water to its closest neighbour (Australia). Yes the C295 and C27J can cross the ditch or reach the Pacific Islands but with a limited load when something like the C130 can lift 2 - 3 times the capacity in one lift and if you look at the KC390, 4 times the capacity. That's what myself and Mr C are getting at. We can acquire something that may cost us twice the price, but we can get 3 - 4 times the productivity out of it, so we are actually gaining in the deal. The RNZAF has been humping HADR up to the Pacific Islands since Adam did his first solo flight and we have a very good understanding of what is required and how to do it, plus a heck of a lot of practice at doing it. The NZDF does HADR throughout the wider Asia Pacific region and beyond.
If they did not require organic helo support then there would also be the rather large flight deck and hanger to use for containers/ freight as well.
So it would seem P8 would therefore not be as suitable for us then if it is limited in the local/regional runways it can operate from especially if it is not at least comparable to our P3s or even 757. If it is indeed that heavy would that not then pose problems with tarmac loading as even our 757s have the dual dollys and undercarriage to take/spread the load more?
Sounds kind of like keeping a window open to include A400 with its organic ability to dispense and recieve fuel in the evaluation phase at least. Will be like the C17 proposal, all options for and against considered regardless of feasability, availability and even suitability along with compromises and considerations.
KC-390,
C130J,
A400M,
Kawasaki C2,
C17,
MRTT is fitted with a boom receptacle to off load fuel to other MRTT, I imagine KC-46A Pegasus would also have this capabilty
von