Royal New Zealand Air Force

[kiwi in exile]

P3's are not even remotely close to the SA and COP capability of the P8's

It's almost a bar fight discussion, but I can think of a number of areas where P8's are superior to the E7's

Granted its been a while since I last attended a P8 brief (12 months +/- month) but holey moley, they were a golden mile ahead of P3's in so many areas it wasn't funny

The SA/ISR capability and concurrent workload ability is significant

I was initially sceptical about the P8's suitability for low and slow ASW/SAR type stuff. But what I have read recently (all public domain stuff) I don't have any concerns. Increased sensor performance will be significant. We wont need to fly low and slow as much. Although the airframe is based on an airliner design, the wing is engineered for the type of missions the P8 can be expected to fly and people are happy with its performance.

The US govt released a report a while ago that criticised the P8s ISR capabilities and wide area ASW capabilities. But these problems were found to be specific to early increment aircraft and wont be an issue with planned capabilities of later increment aircraft- IE it was all part of the plan.

Additionally, the US is testing an Raytheon Andvanced Airborne Sensor for their P8 that will be leaps and bounds ahead of what we have now. This is an upgrade ot the laregely classified Raytheon APS-149 Littoral Surveillance Radar System (LSRS) that the USN has used with some of its P3s. Would be very good if NZ could get a couple... (inserts flying pig emoticon).

 

[ngatimozart]

flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-pushes-for-UK-maritime-patrol-contest

I think that no mater what costing methodology is used the C295 will be in the ball park figures quoted in the article, and even with a varienance of +/- 25% would still make a compelling argument to be one of the options shortlisted in both the FASC & FAMC Detailed Business Case

Thank you for that. This is the Think Defence MPA article from April 2012. It is very good and looks at the contenders for the UK MPA role. Future UK Maritime Patrol - Think Defence

 

[ngatimozart]

Purely the only reason I stated B737 is to keep commonality with P8 and those associated benefits, and since the airbus MPA seems to have fallen off the radar (bad bad pun) A320, albeit another good choice (yes ANZ maint, very capable etc) would be a separate fleet type altogether and therefore not ideal, not impossible, just not ideal. If it can get to Darwin then it's halfway sold?

I saw that the A319MPA has disappeared from the Airbus Military website - its been gone for at east a year now. The commonality with the P8 airframe would be a false economy because I feel that the B737 doesn't offer the same as th B757 so we would tke a decrease in capability.

Since there is an ongoing debate in parliament as to the future of the current boeings and their VFM status this particular capability therefore needs to be as streamlined and cost effective as possible as it is literally flying on thin ice already (Im on fire).

Is there? I hadn't realised that there was a debate in parliament. Who are the naysayers please.

Ngati I think A330 could prove alittle too costly to sell in this case unless it can be proven without a doubt to be a viable, relevant and purposeful game changer as the beans are rumbling in the backround now wanting justification for what we currently have nevermind such a step up. We would definitely need to work in with our mates across the way on this one to make MRTTs a reality at this stage I feel. As you know Im all for this cap but the money monsters knock me back into sadness.

As for P8 obviously it has to be an improvement over the P3 as it was designed as it's successor otherwise no real point or advantage. ASW is a primary function of P8 as it is with P3 but we have adapted P3 to do other semi-related tasks over the years. We would same same with P8 but easier as it could now be included in the initial build process as opposed to added over time.

If we did, by some miracle, splash out then to avoid block obsolescence again we should really look at the medium transport/MPS soon before the C130/B757s come into their golden(er) years. A 3rd frigate (1st new class) midway between the END/LWSV and ANZAC replacements wouldn't go astray either.......

Too many replacements, too little finances and too few voices in key places means a lot of headaches and heartache still to come for the forces.

I too would like a third new build frigate procured and FOC before 2022 because of the reason you cite. I do think two A330 MRT without the tanker gear may be affordable. Thing is all this kit is affordable and arguable actually priority need but the pollies choose not to prioritise funding for that expenditure. My argument is that the money could be found and allocated but it is their choice not too.

The Defence Air Transport Study must of been finished by now and that will inform the 2015 DWP (General election allowing) which will determine the RNZAF air transport for the next 30 - 40 years. I would like to think that medium rand lifters are part of it. As I've previously said I would really love to see the A400 in kiwi colours.

 

[Volkodav]

I don't think there is any doubt that the CN295 is cheaper to procure and operate than the P-8, at the same time though the question has to be raised, does the CN295 offer the same level of capability as the existing P-3? I could be wrong but as I understand it the P-3 and P-8 are a class apart from the CN295 and the smaller platform can't compete in many mission areas. The argument may as well be that the Cessna Caravan is cheaper still and offers an ISR version

 

[gf0012-aust]

I don't think there is any doubt that the CN295 is cheaper to procure and operate than the P-8, at the same time though the question has to be raised, does the CN295 offer the same level of capability as the existing P-3? I could be wrong but as I understand it the P-3 and P-8 are a class apart from the CN295 and the smaller platform can't compete in many mission areas. The argument may as well be that the Cessna Caravan is cheaper still and offers an ISR version

the cheaper argument is a dangerous road to drive on. eg look at the canucks and their auroras - tried to save money by fitting them out with S2 tables, chairs, crockery and cutlery. They never did as well at Fincastle as you would have expected (if you used their ASW skills on skimmers as a benchmark)

 

[Todjaeger]

There seem to be several things people need to keep in mind for any potential RNZAF selections for air transport, maritime patrol and ISR.

One of the first is the utility of a "maritime patrol aircraft" as an ISR asset in an over land role. Having the ability to have an advanced set of "eyes in the sky" which can spot, track, and relay data on hostile contacts can transform a battlespace and significantly reduce the traditional "fog of war." Given that Kiwi troops can, have, and likely will continue to be deployed to areas where such an asset would be a major advantage, then it would seem wise for NZ to have such a capability, in addition of course to the advances made in the maritime capabilityes of a P-8 vs. a P-3 of various versions.

Secondly, while I do like the idea of NZ some lower operating cost maritime patrol aircraft (like the C-295MP or similar) these would be as lower costing and less capable assets to serve as adjuncts to the high-end capabilities of the P-8 Poseidon. They would be in addition to, not in place of the P-8 or a similar capability, and likely more geared towards SAR and constabulary duties in NZ's area of immediate maritime interest and responsibility. The idea being that having some additional such aircraft could allow NZ to have sufficient numbers (or more likely, get closer to having sufficient numbers) to perform the needed patrols to maintain SA of NZ and/or friendly's EEZ's, and allow for a high end asset to deploy elsewhere as needed for training, exercises and operations.

As for the idea of the RNZAF getting A330 for any sort of airlift, or even other types of civilian airliners, that idea really does not fly with me. Using the A330 specifically, they cost between USD$221 - 245 mil. to purchase based off current Airbus pricing and depending on version. This would result in an aircraft able to move larger amounts of personnel and possibly pallets (if cargo version selected) between airports. The aircraft would of course require modification to provide some sort of self-protection vs. missiles. Of greatest concern for me (aside from cost...) is that such an aircraft is really of little use if the airport they are operating to/from lacks working handling systems. At least with military airlifters with a rear ramp, they can be loaded or unloaded comparatively easily.

-Cheers

 

[Reaver]

Can someone who is proposing that the C295 does not have the Capability (i.e. mission systems rather than performance) of the P-8 or P-3 please provide examples of what the deficiencies are.

My understanding is that previous C295 Persuader MPAs have been installed with 2022 Radar, MX-20 EO turrets, CNS/ATM complient Glass cockpit, FITS mission systems, AIS, Tactical Data Links, MILSATCOM, ASW systems, Plyon mounted torpedeos, Self Protection Systems, Air - Ground weapons.

What extra does the P-8 have that is worth the extra $200 Million per airframe i.e. $65M vs $250M.

As I have said in previous posts we can all sit back and make "wouldnt it be great if we brought ......" comments but Capability is acquired by the NZDF/MoD using the Capability Management Framework and the Better Business Case model. Unless you can make a valid arguement to the Government (Treasurary)in a business case for expensive platform options the chance of sucess is low. I have yet to see a arguement for why NZ would purchase a P-8 especially when you factor in the lack of suitable hangars at Whenuapai and the fact that you cannot takeoff at max fuel weight due to the runway being to short.

The fact that the C295 meets the majority of the FAMC requirments and hence could share ILS, infrastructure & simulators across SQNs makes the case against P-8 that much harder, not impossable but harder.

What is the case (i.e. specific details) for P-8s in the NZDF?

 

[Gracie1234]

There are two general areas as i see them, the air platform and the systems onboard
The air platform:
P8 4 hours on station at 1,200nm range
C295 4 hours on station at 200nm range
As previously discussed here and validated during the last maritime patrol review NZ needs more hours of basic martime patrol, this is where a C295 type would meet the need.
There is also the need for extended range patrol so that our large EEZ and SAR area can be covered. This is where only a longe range platform such as a P8 comes in. Aunty Helen wanted to kill the P3 but could not as there was no other option that provided the range at the time. Hence they received their upgrade.

The systems just going to mention one of the radars on the p8 here as an indicator of the step change in improved capability. The P8 airframe will be fitted with the Raytheon Advanced Airborne Sensor (AAS). The AAS is an advancement on the black project Littoral Surveillance Radar System (LSRS) carried on some P-3s. We're learning more about LSRS lately, such as it's capable of being used to target stand off missiles. The LSRS is based on an AESA platform, and is a double sided antenna, allowing it to look left and right, and can interleave GMTI and SAR modes at the same time, instead of either one or the other. The LSRS is said to be much better than the APY-7 carried by the E-8, and the AAS is an improvement on LSRS.

 

[chis73]

Can someone who is proposing that the C295 does not have the Capability (i.e. mission systems rather than performance) of the P-8 or P-3 please provide examples of what the deficiencies are.

Reaver, I guess most advocates of the C295 (like me) aren't looking at the Persuader model (such as that in service with Chile) - they are looking at the more Coastguard orientated model (such as that in service with Portugal). Sensor-wise, it would have just the surface search radar & the EO turret (with palletised mission systems), hopefully the nav radar (so that it can land itself in places with little infrastructure in poor weather). No ASW or other weapon systems (maybe FFBNW), but a secondary cargo role (for within NZ-jobs, replacing the long-lost Andover). Fielded in small numbers as a stop-gap addition while we replace the Hercs & P3s.

The USCG HC-144 is similar in role, but based on the shorter-ranged CN235.

Otherwise, I echo Gracie's thoughts. Range is the major issue, not the sensors / systems on-board or the ASW & other weapons. Even our P3s are majorly under-gunned these days for the ASW role (a higher priority I would have thought than an over-land information / coordination role given our place in the world. The Clark govt thought otherwise though.)

Chis73

 

[Reaver]

Interesting figures on the range, but may not be correct, if you look at the C295 Technical description from Airbus (sorry still cannot link) the figures on station provided are

9 Hours at 200 NM from the base
3 Hours at 800 NM from the base

Plus with the new Winglet & engine modifications Airbus quote an additional 1 hour on station.

Chis73, why not get a mix of MPA (4 Station) varients & the Combi (2 Station) varients. That way you get the best of both worlds and the Combis could perform a airlift capability which when mixed with the transport varient would meet 80% of the NZDF tasking requirements.

 

[Volkodav]

Interesting figures on the range, but may not be correct, if you look at the C295 Technical description from Airbus (sorry still cannot link) the figures on station provided are

9 Hours at 200 NM from the base
3 Hours at 800 NM from the base

Plus with the new Winglet & engine modifications Airbus quote an additional 1 hour on station.

Chis73, why not get a mix of MPA (4 Station) varients & the Combi (2 Station) varients. That way you get the best of both worlds and the Combis could perform a airlift capability which when mixed with the transport varient would meet 80% of the NZDF tasking requirements.

Reaver, do you work for Airbus by any chance?

 

[chis73]

Chis73, why not get a mix of MPA (4 Station) varients & the Combi (2 Station) varients. That way you get the best of both worlds and the Combis could perform a airlift capability which when mixed with the transport varient would meet 80% of the NZDF tasking requirements.

Reaver, I think that you would more likely see a mix of MPA and pure transport variants, not the combi, if we bought an extensive fleet of C295s. But I find that prospect extremely unlikely - hence the compromise. If we get a 2nd tier MPA at all, it will have to offer something else to justify itself.

The C295 just doesn't have the range to be our main MPA. Go and look again at Ngati's SAR zones in post #2477. Bear in mind that 800NM is roughly the distance from south Westland to Tasmania.

On top of that, many other reasons - cost (full-on MPAs are expensive), speed (C295s are slow), only twin-engined (not a great solution for a primarily over-water aircraft operating at low altitude).

Chis73

 

[Todjaeger]

Can someone who is proposing that the C295 does not have the Capability (i.e. mission systems rather than performance) of the P-8 or P-3 please provide examples of what the deficiencies are.

My understanding is that previous C295 Persuader MPAs have been installed with 2022 Radar, MX-20 EO turrets, CNS/ATM complient Glass cockpit, FITS mission systems, AIS, Tactical Data Links, MILSATCOM, ASW systems, Plyon mounted torpedeos, Self Protection Systems, Air - Ground weapons.

What extra does the P-8 have that is worth the extra $200 Million per airframe i.e. $65M vs $250M.

As I have said in previous posts we can all sit back and make "wouldnt it be great if we brought ......" comments but Capability is acquired by the NZDF/MoD using the Capability Management Framework and the Better Business Case model. Unless you can make a valid arguement to the Government (Treasurary)in a business case for expensive platform options the chance of sucess is low. I have yet to see a arguement for why NZ would purchase a P-8 especially when you factor in the lack of suitable hangars at Whenuapai and the fact that you cannot takeoff at max fuel weight due to the runway being to short.

The fact that the C295 meets the majority of the FAMC requirments and hence could share ILS, infrastructure & simulators across SQNs makes the case against P-8 that much harder, not impossable but harder.

What is the case (i.e. specific details) for P-8s in the NZDF?

At work so I cannot go into a great deal of detail, but I will be responding to this more fully later in the evening.

One issue I have with some of the NZ selection process is that much of it seems to be based around "business" type operations. Hence much of the influence/control Treasury and the bean counters have. Unfortunately though Defence is not something which is a "business" in terms of generating revenue.

 

[Reaver]

ahhh yes the old "he quotes facts to counter statements that are incorrect" so of course he must have a ulterior motive and we dont need to pay any attention to what he said.

You have found me out, I am an Airbus Sales agent sent into the dark depths of the RNZAF Blogs knowing that that is where the future purchasing options for NZ are decided.

Or maybe I am a realist who understands how Capability development in the NZDF works and would like to have a reasoned debate with other knowledgeable individuals so that I can validate if my arguement holds weight or has implications that I may not of thought of and thus should change my way of thinking.

P-8 good (shiney/new) - C295 bad (slow/small) is not my definition of a reasoned debate

 

[40 deg south]

Enjoying the discussion over the past few days - kudos to all involved. Lots of interesting information and opinions.

One risk of an early C295 buy is that it could undermine the case for a high-end MPA. It isn't hard to image a future government saying 'Sorry guys, you already have a new plane. And since NZ lies in a sea of peace and harmony, there is no need for an expensive one with weapons fitted'. I'm sure this conundrum is causing a few furrowed brows at Defence HQ.

It will be interesting to see what the UK does about its MPA gap - there seems to be a growing concensus that Something Must Be Done. If the RAF gets the P8, I think it increases the chances we will do the same. Ditto the C295 or (long shot) a marinized A400.

There is one option no one has suggested yet. We could replace the P-3C with (wait for it) a newer P-3C! While NZ's P-3s were manufactured in the late 1960s, production continued well into the 1980s or early 90s in the USA and under licence in Japan.

A few people have speculated about export sales of the Kawasaki P1 MPA. This is a very long shot for NZ, but assuming it makes it into operational service for Japan, will leave them with >100 locally-built P-3s to dispose of. Given RNZAF has demonstrated an ability to squeeze 50 years out of the airframe, Jaan's airframes are barely run in yet. Not a glamour solution, but if it works for NZ's passenger car fleet...

 

[ADMk2]

a

P-8 good (shiney/new) - C295 bad (slow/small) is not my definition of a reasoned debate

Not in of itself no. But your answer is in those 'throwaway' remarks.

P-8A - high end maritime patrol, ASW, ASuW and overland ISR capability. Extended range, high cruise speed and lengthy loiter time, or shorter range / lower cruise speeds and extended loiter time. Capability inherent to undertake alternative missions without modification to the platform including Standoff weapon capability, EW mission variants and so on. However high end capability comes with a high end price tag and increased support requirements - runways, hangars, training / support capabilities and so on.

C-295 based variant. Medium level MPA capability, moderate range / cruise speeds / loiter time. Less specialisation for MPA role and more 'all-rounder' capability. Lower cost and support and more commonality with other RNZAF needs including tactical airlift capability. Potentially lower cost and support requirements, however may not meet RNZAF requirements for overall MPA capability, so it's commonality with platforms suitable for the Tactical Airlift role may be dubious.

Furthermore the C-295 is only one such 'modular' solution, there are others including the Hercules SC-130J which will surely bid as well and offer many of the same capabilities and commonality aspects, given the C-130J-30 will undoubtedly be bid for future RNZAF Tactical / Strategic airlift requirements.

 

[htbrst]

There is one option no one has suggested yet. We could replace the P-3C with (wait for it) a newer P-3C!

...or rewing the ones we have again! :nutkick

If we did order a mid-teir MPA like the C295 soonish, it could extend the life of the P-3 fleet by sharing the load now, and push any P-3 replacement further away from other big-ticket items.

Brazil have just ordered a few C295's for this purpose too.

 

[ngatimozart]

ahhh yes the old "he quotes facts to counter statements that are incorrect" so of course he must have a ulterior motive and we dont need to pay any attention to what he said.

You have found me out, I am an Airbus Sales agent sent into the dark depths of the RNZAF Blogs knowing that that is where the future purchasing options for NZ are decided.

Or maybe I am a realist who understands how Capability development in the NZDF works and would like to have a reasoned debate with other knowledgeable individuals so that I can validate if my arguement holds weight or has implications that I may not of thought of and thus should change my way of thinking.

P-8 good (shiney/new) - C295 bad (slow/small) is not my definition of a reasoned debate

People, some of whom are Defence Professionals, have been giving you the information you need for a proper informed discussion. This discussion has to be based around the needs of the operator and the capabilities of thee platforms. These have been stated more than once. Do not come the raw prawn with people here for your failures. You have made a claim about knowing how capability development within NZDF works, so please back up that claim with some credentials.

 

[Reaver]

Ngati, why is it when someone makes an arugement you dont agree with you pull out the show us your credientials comment? You did it in the Replacement Individual Weapons thread and you are trying to do it to me.

I am struggling to see where my "failures" in my arguements are, maybe it is in pointing out the correct range figures for the C295 or maybe it is stating the the NZDF/MoD follows the CMF & BBC process.

I understand if you disagree with my logic and that is your right but to try and shut down debate with personal attacks refelects on the quality of your posts.

As to my credentials I will leave that up to the viewers to judge based on my arguements to date, and I have to agree with 40 South this is a good discussion and long may it continue

 

[ngatimozart]

Ngati, why is it when someone makes an arugement you dont agree with you pull out the show us your credientials comment? You did it in the Replacement Individual Weapons thread and you are trying to do it to me.

I am struggling to see where my "failures" in my arguements are, maybe it is in pointing out the correct range figures for the C295 or maybe it is stating the the NZDF/MoD follows the CMF & BBC process.

I understand if you disagree with my logic and that is your right but to try and shut down debate with personal attacks refelects on the quality of your posts.

As to my credentials I will leave that up to the viewers to judge based on my arguements to date, and I have to agree with 40 South this is a good discussion and long may it continue

People on here make plenty of arguments that I disagree with which you would have seen if you have read back through threads. I have made the request because you have made a claim about "... who understands how Capability development in NZDF works ..." As to your logic, I'll reserve my judgement on that. Like I said you have been given the information you have requested and your failure as I see it, is making use of it. Again I am asking for your credentials. Since you want to know why, I am trying to reason out if you are what you claim you are. Is that plain enough? You have made a claim please back it up. I rarely ask for peoples credentials and only do it when I have doubts.