Here is a good press release on a much needed effort: refurbishing P-3s.
It would be good if the U.S. Navy would press head and look at the P-8 not as a replacement of the P-3, but to better enhance U.S. Navy ISR. Value-added for the coming thin budget years.
The same could be said for Australian Defence.
New Zealand was pretty smart with P-3 life extension. (H/T-Horde) Project Kestrel involved Hawker Pacific (Aust) and refurbished 6 x NZ P-3K airframes and, in the process, zero houred the principal airframe components (wing, including carry through; empennage; and, engine nacelles) for something like NZ$91M for everything.
15 comments:
Unless it is expensive, over priced and shiny, forget it for Australia.
The Kiwis have always been good at this.
By the way the work was done in Australia with the new wings manufactured in Korea.
Another example, they replaced the diesel engines and did other upgrades to their frigates with a Project team of 2.
Thanks Anon2.
Sadly, Anon2 is pretty close to the mark. For too long now, weapon programmes seem to be more directed towards which one will provide the most pork barrel jobs in the right electorate.
One also cannot help but harbour the suspicion that which programme might provide the most lucrative post retirement job to some of the people making the decision is sometimes a factor.
It is not obvious, but I would like to poit out there are inter and even intra-divisional struggles inside Lockheed for business opportunities. If there are two Lockheed products that can possibly serve a customer purpose, there is no real competition. Executive decisions are made in private. For instance, it has been decided to market the C-130J with a roll on mission module instead of a modernized P-3 for maritime patrol. Both these products are LM/Aero Marietta. New P-3 wings are currently being assembled in the same factory as the C-130J. I'm sure there are good business reasons for it, but the P-3 will always be better at the maritime role, because it was designed for that.
A bit off topic but a pity the Kiwis did not also just put their Iroquois through the Huey II upgrade program at about $2million each. That would have given them enhanced hot and high performance for archipelago operations and of course retained the capability for rapid deployment/redeployment by C-130H.
That invaluable well-proven capacity was forfeited by Australia and NZ with acquisition of the MRH90, perhaps only expensively deployable by C-17 or similar means and who knows how long to partially dismantle for air transportation and assemble at destination.
Tactical capability just cast aside.
A bit off topic but a pity the Kiwis did not also just put their Iroquois through the Huey II upgrade program at about $2million each. That would have given them enhanced hot and high performance for archipelago operations and of course retained the capability for rapid deployment/redeployment of upgraded Iroquois by C-130H.
That invaluable well-proven capacity was forfeited by Australia and NZ with acquisition of the MRH90, perhaps only expensively deployable by C-17 or similar means and who knows how long to partially dismantle for air transportation and assemble at destination.
Tactical capability just cast aside.
A bit off topic, but a pity the Kiwis did not also just put their Iroquois through the Huey II upgrade program at about $2million each. That would have given them enhanced hot and high performance for archipelago operations and of course retained the capability for rapid deployment/redeployment by C-130H.
That invaluable well-proven regional capacity was forfeited by Australia and NZ with acquisition of the MRH90, perhaps only expensively deployable by C-17 or similar means and who knows how long to partially dismantle for air transportation and assemble at destination.
Cost-effective tactical capability just cast aside.
Help please Eric. Something went ape so kindly delete surplus posts.
BR71.
Interesting.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/asian-skies//2012/06/photos-rnzaf-uh-1hs-loaded-ont.html
Just shows you.
Anon2:
Nice bit on the C-17 over at Flight Global.
Thanks!
Like the RNZAF, the RAAF had Iroquois deployability by C-130 down to a fine art, having done it hundreds of times before 1989. It took about one hour to prepare a Huey airframe for Herc loading and about the same time to reassemble and test fly at destination. A Bell purpose-designed roof-mountable simple jib crane with a hand operated winch was sometimes used to lift the mast and rotorhead/blades assembly above the cabin for reconfiguring; but mobile cranes, front end loaders or other suitable machinery were quicker means, where available.
Seems the ADF are also deploying 4 Blackhawk for assistance with PNG elections, but whether being ferried or C-17 transported is not known. The interesting bit is operating cost of the Blackhawk is around 5 times that of the RNZAF Hotel model Iroquois (DoD 2007 figures) and the ADF having shed their Hueys, also intends disposing of Blackhawk; ergo, nil utility helo capability as the super-expensive MRH90 is really a medium lift platform.
The planners in Canberra really lost the plot and ADF helo fleet operating costs are going to soar, with capability gaps already created.
Current hourly operating costs for MRH90 are $32,000 an hour.
Hmmm; and Huey II less than $5,000 per flying hour.
In 2003 the costs were as follows for the Huey2.
Consumables UH-1H Huey II
Fuel/Oil/Lubricants $143.22
Maintenance Labor $74.92
Airframe Maintenance
Parts $62.92
Dynamics $ 123.89
Engine Costs
Overhaul $ 98.00
Line Maintenance $ 8.00
Total Direct Cost of Operation $510.95
Taking into account inflation,at about 4%, this would translate to about $3,250 an hour?
Seems Eric might be journeying somewhere with me feeling a bit guilty of hijacking his good P-3 thread.
Anonymous; your last should help bring the military hardware operating costs issue more into focus.
DoD 2007 figures provided to ASPI included hourly operating cost of $5,755 for a civilian twin engine Bell 412 rescue helicopter. Sources operating single engine Bell Iroquois derivatives throughout the archipelago to make money suggest operating costs below $3,000 per hour.
So; if Blackhawk is say around 5 times more costly to operate than Huey II and the MRH90 at least 10 times H2, cost-effectiveness of battlefield utility helo support and aid to civil powers has been negated. Goes without saying that tactical flexibility has also been forfeited by needlessly shedding the Iroquois.
Homing in on soaring operating costs for defence might do more to crystallize debate regarding hardware acquisitions than any other considerations.
Post a Comment