![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "The CO" wrote in message ... It is quite possible that they will not be aquired until about the time that the F-111 is due to retire. It's arguably the best replacement in the pure recon role. Quite possibly. But the F-111 is due to retire by 2015 and AFAIK they have not even started a project to procure Global Hawk yet. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "L'acrobat" wrote in message ... "The CO" wrote in message ... It is quite possible that they will not be aquired until about the time that the F-111 is due to retire. It's arguably the best replacement in the pure recon role. Quite possibly. But the F-111 is due to retire by 2015 and AFAIK they have not even started a project to procure Global Hawk yet. Whilst not specifically a project to procure Global Hawk, Air 7000 is looking at it - http://australianit.news.com.au/arti...E15306,00.html ASYLUM-seekers and illegal fishing vessels are the targets of a likely $150 million investment in the Global Hawk pilotless spy plane. Global Hawk has been slotted into the Defence Department's Project Air 7000 plan as a partial replacement for the Air Force's AP-3C Orion. Officially classified as an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), Global Hawk can stay airborne for 36 hours, scanning an area the size of Tasmania in 24 hours. It hit the headlines in 2001 when it flew non-stop between the US and Australia. Orions are now used for surveillance along Australia's northern maritime border. Project Air 7000 is exploring replacements, including UAVs. ------------------------------ The AP-3C Orions are due to retire around 2025, you would expect Global Hawk (or follow ons) to start supplimenting them by around 2015/2020 if they were to replace them by 2025 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() L'acrobat wrote in message ... http://australianit.news.com.au/arti...19%5E%5Enbv%5E 15306,00.html ASYLUM-seekers and illegal fishing vessels are the targets of a likely $150 million investment in the Global Hawk pilotless spy plane. Global Hawk has been slotted into the Defence Department's Project Air 7000 plan as a partial replacement for the Air Force's AP-3C Orion. Officially classified as an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), Global Hawk can stay airborne for 36 hours, scanning an area the size of Tasmania in 24 hours. Eh? Taswegia? Taswegia = approx 26k sq miles (www.goway.com/downunder/australia/tasmania/) however the Global Hawk is supposed to be able to scan 40k sq miles in 24 hours .............(http://www.fas.org/irp/program/colle...026_991973.htm ) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "RT" wrote in message ... L'acrobat wrote in message ... http://australianit.news.com.au/arti...19%5E%5Enbv%5E 15306,00.html ASYLUM-seekers and illegal fishing vessels are the targets of a likely $150 million investment in the Global Hawk pilotless spy plane. Global Hawk has been slotted into the Defence Department's Project Air 7000 plan as a partial replacement for the Air Force's AP-3C Orion. Officially classified as an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), Global Hawk can stay airborne for 36 hours, scanning an area the size of Tasmania in 24 hours. Eh? Taswegia? Taswegia = approx 26k sq miles (www.goway.com/downunder/australia/tasmania/) however the Global Hawk is supposed to be able to scan 40k sq miles in 24 hours ............(http://www.fas.org/irp/program/colle...026_991973.htm ) Your reference has probably left out the offshore islands and the area between them and the main island (Tasmania). It's a common mistake the state of Tasmania isn't an island, it's an island group. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "L'acrobat" wrote in message ... The AP-3C Orions are due to retire around 2025, you would expect Global Hawk (or follow ons) to start supplimenting them by around 2015/2020 if they were to replace them by 2025 I'll be interested to see what is going to replace the P3's. More P3's or will they look at Nimrod again? Getting the TAP3's to keep the hours down on the operational fleet seems to have been a very good idea. The CO |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The CO wrote:
I'll be interested to see what is going to replace the P3's. More P3's or will they look at Nimrod again? A lot of forces operate the P-3 so the issue is not unique to the RAAF. Where are you going to get at least equal capbility when it's time to replace them. Boeing looked at doing a Nimrod job on the 757 but nobody would pay for the development. I wonder if there is sufficient development in the E-10A to make a "P-10" worthwhile? Lockmart have looked at an ASW version of the C-130J. Could they even build more Orions? Perhaps the P-7 could be revived? Cheers David |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "David Bromage" wrote in message .. . The CO wrote: I'll be interested to see what is going to replace the P3's. More P3's or will they look at Nimrod again? A lot of forces operate the P-3 so the issue is not unique to the RAAF. Where are you going to get at least equal capbility when it's time to replace them. Boeing looked at doing a Nimrod job on the 757 but nobody would pay for the development. I wonder if there is sufficient development in the E-10A to make a "P-10" worthwhile? Lockmart have looked at an ASW version of the C-130J. Could they even build more Orions? Perhaps the P-7 could be revived? If you were starting a project now, you'd probably look at the B767 airframe as the basis for purely logistic reasons. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
L'acrobat wrote:
"David Bromage" wrote in message .. . A lot of forces operate the P-3 so the issue is not unique to the RAAF. Where are you going to get at least equal capbility when it's time to replace them. If you were starting a project now, you'd probably look at the B767 airframe as the basis for purely logistic reasons. I know the 767 will be the airframe for a lot of tankers, but it seems overly big for an ASW platform. That's why I suggested the 757. It will be the basis of the E-10A, on which the big radar is in the right place for a torpedo bay. But you'd use the same engines and avionics whether it was a 757 or 767, which is the main logistic advantage. They have a common type rating anyway. Cheers David |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "David Bromage" wrote in message .. . L'acrobat wrote: "David Bromage" wrote in message .. . A lot of forces operate the P-3 so the issue is not unique to the RAAF. Where are you going to get at least equal capbility when it's time to replace them. If you were starting a project now, you'd probably look at the B767 airframe as the basis for purely logistic reasons. I know the 767 will be the airframe for a lot of tankers, but it seems overly big for an ASW platform. That's why I suggested the 757. It will be the basis of the E-10A, on which the big radar is in the right place for a torpedo bay. But you'd use the same engines and avionics whether it was a 757 or 767, which is the main logistic advantage. They have a common type rating anyway. Apparently the Boeing 737 is the proposed MMMA airframe |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
homebuilt safety | anonymous coward | Home Built | 96 | June 3rd 04 04:34 AM |
Safety Pilot Qualification? | Richard | Instrument Flight Rules | 17 | November 24th 03 03:07 PM |
Air Safety in Jeopardy | PlanetJ | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | August 9th 03 04:46 PM |
Air Safety threat | PlanetJ | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 8th 03 04:03 AM |
Logging instrument approaches | Slav Inger | Instrument Flight Rules | 33 | July 27th 03 11:00 PM |