Sukarno stays in power - what would Australia do?

I must admit, I do like the notion of the Lockheed C-130 AEW being able to operate from austere airfields, affording them to be deployed more unpredictable to Indonesian intelligence and targeting. I particularly like the thought of C-130 AEW's operating in PNG.

Now to work out the 'rough' specification differences between the flight performances of the C-130E/H and P-3B/C to ascertain which has the best altitude performance.....

Regards
Pioneer
 
Pioneer said:
I must admit, I do like the notion of the Lockheed C-130 AEW being able to operate from austere airfields, affording them to be deployed more unpredictable to Indonesian intelligence and targeting. I particularly like the thought of C-130 AEW's operating in PNG.
Click to expand...
An argument, true. Albeit I suppose that any heavy AEW would operate from rearward bases anyway, leaving the forward bases for light AEW (like Tracers).
 
I wouldn't have thought austere airfield operations were a requirements for AEW, indeed apart from maybe emergency or administrative use it would be a detriment. A P3 for example would have a flight endurance of 10+ hours and continent spanning range, indeed that's why the RAAF P3 were based at Adelaide, it was a central location that could cover both coasts. This means they could cover vast areas or stay on station for long periods operating from main RAAF bases. Even as electronics became more reliable I'd suggest 70s AEW aircraft would be maintenance hogs that would require large teams of techos to keep them fully operational, and such teams wouldn't be available at austere bases.
 
Rule of cool said:
A P3 for example would have a flight endurance of 10+ hours and continent spanning range, indeed that's why the RAAF P3 were based at Adelaide, it was a central location that could cover both coasts. This means they could cover vast areas or stay on station for long periods operating from main RAAF bases. Even as electronics became more reliable I'd suggest 70s AEW aircraft would be maintenance hogs that would require large teams of techos to keep them fully operational, and such teams wouldn't be available at austere bases.
Click to expand...
I agree here; it make more sence to operate them from secure rear airbases & use tankers to compensate for additional flight time from them.
 
Pioneer said:
I must admit, I do like the notion of the Lockheed C-130 AEW being able to operate from austere airfields, affording them to be deployed more unpredictable to Indonesian intelligence and targeting. I particularly like the thought of C-130 AEW's operating in PNG.

Now to work out the 'rough' specification differences between the flight performances of the C-130E/H and P-3B/C to ascertain which has the best altitude performance.....

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
No thoughts required, props alone will tell you.

P-3s and C-130s use the same engines, and almost the same wing. The difference is props. P-3s have rounded tips on their props, gives them better performance at low altitude, while C-130s have squared-off props for better performance up high.




Rule of cool said:
I wouldn't have thought austere airfield operations were a requirements for AEW, indeed apart from maybe emergency or administrative use it would be a detriment. A P3 for example would have a flight endurance of 10+ hours and continent spanning range, indeed that's why the RAAF P3 were based at Adelaide, it was a central location that could cover both coasts. This means they could cover vast areas or stay on station for long periods operating from main RAAF bases. Even as electronics became more reliable I'd suggest 70s AEW aircraft would be maintenance hogs that would require large teams of techos to keep them fully operational, and such teams wouldn't be available at austere bases.
Click to expand...
Agreed, though I'd have two bases for the AEW planes. Just to save a couple hours of flight time each mission getting to the patrol area.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom