Doubt it because that would cost them money as well. Again it's the long lead items etc., and the dedicated P-8 assembly line once the fuselages etc., arrive.
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
Actually there is now hope for P-8 production to extend beyond 2023 as India plans to purchase another 10 (India to acquire ten more US P-8I aircraft for ISR and ASW operations)
- I know this may take forever but Boeing was very patient for Inda to take the last white tail C-17.
Takao
The Bunker Group
Noting the DWP is increasingly out of sych (through no mistake on its part) with tech and the strategic environment, I wonder if there is a better question to ask - do we need P-8A 13 - 15? I know blue suiters will say yes immediately, but what is the opportunity cost the Joint Force misses out by buying more of an existing capability? Are there better things we can do with that money?
Or do we need more?
I don't think the argument has been made in either direction, or for why 15 is the right number.
My sense is that we will need more as we face an assertive China but haven't seen anywhere an explanation as to why the answer or otherwise.
Regards,
Massive
If it goes through then yes, the P-8 line may be extended and the RAAF may have a chance to obtain more if the CoA decides to acquire more. The difference between the P-8 and the C-17 white tail, was that white tail was built on spec and waiting for an owner. So far no P-8s have been built on spec and I think that it would be unlikely that any will be.
Actually there is more than just Indian interest to extend P-8 orders:
U.S. Navy official sees more orders for Boeing P-8A in coming months
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The link mentions Canada as a potential buyer. Haven't seen any mention of that lately here including the usual BS promises associated with an election campaign. Certainly the need is apparent but with CSC and the fighter replacement, no party has a plan to fund this requirement short of increasing the already disgraceful annual deficit. The only hope for P-8s in Canada is USN and India orders keeping the line open until the late 2020s.
Last edited:
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Awesome videos! I assume this flight was announced ahead of time otherwise some people in those tall buildings might be freaking.
It happens every year mate, and there's a rehearsal the day prior too. I worked on the tenth floor of one of those buildings for years and our west facing windows were always standing room only on practice day. Best was back when the F-111's did their dump and burn routine along the river, but the C-17 and Super Hornet/Growler displays are still pretty choice. Even the helo displays are great seen from a oveAwesome videos! I assume this flight was announced ahead of time otherwise some people in those tall buildings might be freaking.
oldsig
t68
Well-Known Member
Pity we don’t get that in ole Sydney town, I can’t even remember when the last air show at Richmond was held.
InterestedParty
Active Member
I spent a couple of weeks between Richmond, Canberra, Nowra and Brisbane, flying around in one of these with the Combined Services Rugby team a long time ago.
The most memorable occasion was flying past Lake George in a headwind when we saw another team member, who chose to drive to Canberra, who passed us and met us on landing.
The most memorable occasion was flying past Lake George in a headwind when we saw another team member, who chose to drive to Canberra, who passed us and met us on landing.
Great old bird. Had a jolly in long time back when it was on exercise in NZ along with 9 Sqn RAAF Iroquois. They were doing mountain flying training based out of Woodbourne. Many of us reckoned that we should've traded in our Bristol Frighteners for Caribou then.
I found these two posts on The Strategist very informative. Also including one of the additional posts that is referenced within these.
Interesting to see the limitations that Australia's geography imposes on operations from continental bases. The good thing of course is that the same limitations also apply to an aggressor.
Projecting power with the F-35 (part 1): How far can it go? | The Strategist
Projecting power with the F-35 (part 2): going further | The Strategist
aspistrategist.org.au/what-the-battle-of-britain-can-teach-us-about-defending-australia/
Regards,
Massive
Interesting to see the limitations that Australia's geography imposes on operations from continental bases. The good thing of course is that the same limitations also apply to an aggressor.
Projecting power with the F-35 (part 1): How far can it go? | The Strategist
Projecting power with the F-35 (part 2): going further | The Strategist
aspistrategist.org.au/what-the-battle-of-britain-can-teach-us-about-defending-australia/
Regards,
Massive
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Yes I read Pt 2 this morning too, be interesting to see what Marcus Hellyer has to say in Pt 3.
But the point you make about geography is correct, it is a two-way street, a long distance for one side is equally a long distance for the other side too.
What the article has ignored to this point (and we wait and see what's in Pt 3), is the potential availability of friendly air bases to our north (I won't list all the possibilities), I'd like to see a map with a radius circle around all those northern friendly bases (no doubt the DoD has such maps).
The other matter not mentioned so far (and again we await Pt 3), is precision long range weapons that are available for the F-35A and Super Hornet too (yes they may not be integrated as at today), but weapons such as JSM, JASSM, JASSM-ER, LRASM, etc.
JSM reportedly has a range of up to 560km, JASSM up to 370km, JASSM-ER 925+km and LRASM 560km.
To put that into perspective, the often used comparison was against the F-111C, which reportedly had a combat radius of 2,140km, but of course during the service life of the Pig those very long range weapons were not available to them, the AGM-142 reportedly had a range of 78km, and for maritime strike were earlier versions of Harpoon, range numbers vary, but I have seen figures suggesting a max of approx. 100 miles (160km).
So whilst the Pig had a great combat radius (and no RAAF tanker with a boom support), it had to get pretty close to a target, especially a land based target before weapons release, which of course increases the risk to the crew and aircraft.
Yes the Lightning II is not the Pig (in terms of combat radius for the airframe), but the Pig didn't have the organic force multipliers that are available to the Lightning II either.
Glass half empty? glass half full? Depends on how you look at it....
Cheers,
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Do we need those three extra P-8A? Fair question to ask.
But equally isn't all of ADFs capabilities fair game for the same question too?
One would assume that force structure is something that is under review regularly (not something that would be seen by the general public), but I would assume it is something that is regularly under review across the board.
Looking back, as we know, the original plan during the late 2000s was for 8 x P-8A and 7 x MQ-4C to replace the 19 x AP-3Cs.
Then in 2013 Air Marshall Geoff Brown said that the RAAF was looking at airframe numbers and suggested that a better balance/structure (can't remember the exact wording) was to follow the USN plan of a 2 to 1 ratio (P-8A to MQ-4C) and suggested the appropriate numbers were 12 x P-8A, but was a bit non committal if the MQ-4C numbers would be adjusted (eg, 7 down to 6).
In around early/mid 2014 then PM Abbott announced the procurement of eight x P-8A, plus four options. By the time the 2016 DWP was published, the plan for P-8A was now 15 airframes (8+4+3), and MQ-4C was still mentioned as seven airframes. By mid 2018 when the MQ-4C order was announced, the numbers changed slightly to 6 firm +1 option.
So yes numbers do change, look at the MC-55A (G550), originally in the 2016 DWP was to be five, now four, from memory E-7A was four + three options, ended up as six. Lots and lots of example are available.
So do we need those three extra three P-8A?
Well I'm just a pleb on the outside looking in, but in my humble opinion, I would say yes (and noting that a budget allowance is in place), especially with the reported growing number of submarines that will be operating in our areas of interest in the coming decades, adding a few extra airframes at the end isn't a deal breaker (in dollar terms) due to the fact that infrastructure, simulators, etc, is in place already.
Anyway, just my opinion of course too.
Cheers,
PS, As matter of interest, what do you believe are the better things we can do with that money?
Last edited:
The AIR 7003 selection is nearing and UK is looking at supplementing its meager 9 P-8s with an ASW role fit to their new General Atomic Protectors:
Leonardo-Ultra Electronics team has a pitch for Britain’s future fleet of Protector drones
Obviously these UAVs may end up being overtasked if they become Jack of All Trades but a Protector monitoring a sonobuoy field for up to 40 hours would be a very efficient means of ASW search phase - a P-8 would be sent out to prosecute any detections made.
The same argument could be made to supplement the 4 RNZAF P-8s.
Last edited:
I know the mods don't like one liners, but once you have force multipliers the glass is always refillable!
rb