"RT" <r.thomas@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bdribi$vf5ar$1@no-spam
>
> L'acrobat wrote in message ...
>
>http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,6678886%5E15319%5E%5Enbv%5E
> 15306,00.html
> >
> >ASYLUM-seekers and illegal fishing vessels are the targets of a likely
$150
> >million investment in the Global Hawk pilotless spy plane.
> >
> >Global Hawk has been slotted into the Defence Department's Project Air
7000
> >plan as a partial replacement for the Air Force's AP-3C Orion.
> >Officially classified as an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), Global Hawk
can
> >stay airborne for 36 hours, scanning an area the size of Tasmania in 24
> >hours.
>
> Eh? Taswegia? Taswegia = approx 26k sq miles
> (www.goway.com/downunder/australia/tasmania/) however the Global Hawk is
> supposed to be able to scan 40k sq miles in 24 hours
> ............(www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/n19991026_991973.htm )
Your reference has probably left out the offshore islands and the area
between them and the main island (Tasmania).
It's a common mistake the state of Tasmania isn't an island, it's an island
group.
"The CO" <askme@no-spam> wrote in message
news:OhNMa.55$a%1.2978@no-spam
> > They seem keen on at least partially replacing them with UAVs
>
> That would make sense for the surveillance role.
> There could be huge savings over the present setup assuming the quality
> of surveillance
> can be matched by the UAVs.
> That leaves the ASW/Maritime strike component. Smaller quantity of
> replacements,
> ie new Orions or Nimrod?
> I'm aware of UAVs being fitted for air/ground strike (on a small scale)
> but I don't recall
> any attempt at an ASW UAV being made. Given the complexity of systems
> like Global
> Hawk I suppose it would be possible, but I'm less sure it would be an
> economic proposition
> compared to more conventional methods.
I believe the RAAF has an exchange officer in the US Multi Mission Maritime
Aircraft project (follow on to Orion)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:14:15 +1000
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
"David Bromage" <dbromage@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F03AD97.8030204@no-spam
> 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.
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:04:58 +1000
L'acrobat wrote:
> "David Bromage" <dbromage@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3F03AD97.8030204@no-spam
>>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
"David Bromage" <dbromage@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F03C78A.5000204@no-spam
> L'acrobat wrote:
> > "David Bromage" <dbromage@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3F03AD97.8030204@no-spam
> >>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