![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |