Yes agree with the above, my thoughts are in what context are they thinking and is the AAR focused on the FASC (not stated directly ) or more on the FAMC (stated directly ) in which case both the A400 and the KC390 would have it covered. The FASC will probably be ordered after the last of the FAMC and the aircraft ordered may not have AAR, as while the P8 appears the obvious choice, this could depend on the Governments priorities at the time. For instance if they decide that resource protection and SAR are the likely dominant functions during the aircraft's life, (the no threat in our time brigade) can an aircraft designed to function at 30000ft plus carry out these functions effectively. I would say that if the previous H.C. government was in power or similar then this would be a dominant question.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
I think we must take in the political time line when thinking of what the replacements aircraft will be for the FASC and the FAMC as these could play a significant part in the process.The way I see it is that the C130 replacement will be finalized by the 2017 government, the 757 replacement by the 2020 government and the P3 replacement by the 2023 government or even as late as the 2026 government.
Mr C I disagree that the A400 is ahead of the competition in regard to development as there is still significant soft ware and hardware development to be carried out on this very complex program. While the A400 has had a significant head start I think that the C2/KC390 programs, have caught up and passed the A400 due to their use of well tried engines and existing systems and their use of well established specialist companies to do a lot of the work. The A400 used untried and new design systems and engines designed by companies that where cobbled together for political reasons and had to start from scratch.
The A400 still has software glitches to iron out of their control systems and a redesign of the gearboxes and needs to operate under restrictions until these are fixed permanently, There could be some years before this aircraft can be declared fully operational.The C2 was declared operational last year and it is expected that the KC390 will follow this year.
Mr C I disagree that the A400 is ahead of the competition in regard to development as there is still significant soft ware and hardware development to be carried out on this very complex program. While the A400 has had a significant head start I think that the C2/KC390 programs, have caught up and passed the A400 due to their use of well tried engines and existing systems and their use of well established specialist companies to do a lot of the work. The A400 used untried and new design systems and engines designed by companies that where cobbled together for political reasons and had to start from scratch.
The A400 still has software glitches to iron out of their control systems and a redesign of the gearboxes and needs to operate under restrictions until these are fixed permanently, There could be some years before this aircraft can be declared fully operational.The C2 was declared operational last year and it is expected that the KC390 will follow this year.
US Navy has advised that the last P-8 production is in FY19 - with orders placed at least 12 months earlier. I RNZAF decision is delayed until 2023 P8 is not an option.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Could that possibly be just the USN's production run?
The first 12 RAAF P-8's are scheduled to be in service by the early 2020's, but the 'extra' three mentioned in the DWP appear to be planned to enter service later in the 2020's.
The UK's nine P-8's are reported to start being delivered starting 2019 and spread out over a number of years.
Also the recent announcement by Norway for five airframes, and from what I've read that will happen around 2021-22.
And of course India too, I've read they are planning to order an additional four airframes (yes, of course we all know about Indian procurement!!!).
And who knows who also might consider the P-8 between now and then too.
You would certainly hope that the NZG was fully aware of P-8 production schedules (I'm sure they are), it may be that the RNZAF's P-8's could be some of the last off the production line.
Somehow I don't think the USN's 2019 date is the end of the line!!
If the RNZAF were in a hurry for the P3 replacement I don't think that the recently announced ASW upgrade would have gone ahead, So I think that the replacement time table for the P3 replacement is for later rather than sooner. As a large part of the P3's operational flying is resource protection plus SAR the government of the day may not view the P8 as an ideal platform due to its high altitude operating criteria. Because there is a need for visual contact in these area's, plus photo evidence for resource violations.
RAAF's first P8 was announced in 2014 and was produced as part of FY15 (Lot 8 I think). It was delivered in November 2016 but the remaining 3 of that batch will not be delivered until well into 2017 - 3 years after the order was announced.
On the basis of RAAF FY15 Lot, the last of the FY19 Lot may not be delivered until 2021 but long lead orders will need to be confirmed by end-2017.
Similarly the RAF's 9, Norwegian 5 and Indian 4 optional extras had to be ordered by now if they are to be spread over the three remaining USN Lots FY17-FY19.
Check out the following: http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/Budget-Data/FY2016/P-8A-NAVY-PROC-FY2016.pdf
I am sure Boeing will be happy to charge anyone who wants the cost of re-establishing the line post 2019 - but it will cost!
No because the current P3 upgrade is for the ASW capability not covered in the previous upgrade due to the then Labour govt anti ASW stance. The subsurface sensing capabilities of the P3s is 60 - 70s era technology that has not been upgraded.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Yes I've seen that list too, and yes it shows the last USN airframes produced is for the FY-19 lot.
All true, but .... the date on the top of that list is February 2015.
To the best of my knowledge the UK didn't announce their intention to order it's nine airframes until early 2016 (eg, well after that date), and of course the announcement of the Norway's five airframes wasn't until late 2016, and on top of that it wasn't until early 2016 that the Australian Government announced the additional three airframes too (and I also think that the RAAF's plan to increase from the original 8 +4 options to 12 wasn't made until after that February 2015 date as well.
But lets also do a bit of maths with the numbers in that list too.
The USN procurement, as I understand it is for 109 airframes (yes the numbers have gone up and down a bit, but I'm sure it now 109), and that is the total of that list too, eg, 109 airframes.
What is not shown in that list (of 109 for the USN), is 8 x India (+4 possible options), 15 x RAAF, 9 x RAF and 5 x RNoAF.
That's a total of 37 (+4 Indian options), eg up to another 41 airframes produced above the USN total. (and yes India now has it's original 8 and the RAAF now has its first).
Will "Boeing will be happy to charge anyone who wants the cost of re-establishing the line post 2019"??
Mate, I still think the line will be open post 2019 regardless.
What you say is perfectly true, but as the upgrade is to be finished in 2019 I don't think it would have gone ahead for only a short span of use, It is unlikely that either treasury or the cabinet would have run with that. I would suspect that at least a 6 to 10 year in service use would have to be factored in. as any shorter I think the RNZAF would have been told to wait for the replacement aircraft. They had been waiting a hell of a long time already, would a short wait made any real difference?
For a bit of perspective this ASW capability upgrade by Boeing for the P-3K2 is to cost USD$24m and is there to bridge the capability gap from its introduction at the later part of this decade until the IOC of its scheduled replacement. Re-activating skills development on the squadron is part of this of course.
So could you tell us more about the DO-178B Certification with respect to the KC-390 and C-2. Where are they with that?
Also do you think that ASIC and TTPC protocols and systems groups won't be a factor in this?
Thanks John - I do not want this to go on too far but I believe all of the original 8 Indian P8Is are either already delivered or about to be under pre-FY15 orders and the RAAF 12 are being ordered 4 at a time from FY15-17. That only leaves 9 RAF, 4 IAF options and 5 NAF to be added over FY17-19. P8 production in FY16 was 20 (16 USN + 4 RAAF) so there ample room after USN production over FY17-19 shown in the table (12,12 & 7) to produce 25 foreign P-8s by FY19.
I am positive I have seen a reliable statement that US has told foreign buyers to place last P8 orders by end-2017 - not that they will be delivered prior to 2021. That is why we have seen the Norwegian and Indian (options) announced recently and even the further RAAF 3 mentioned at the welcome ceremony for first RAAF P8 which I attended.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Hi Steve,
The US may well be putting pressure on foreign buyers to get their orders in by end of 2017, wouldn't be surprised if Boeing sales reps are regularly banging on a lot of doors to get the hurry along.
And as you said in the beginning, the NZG probably needs to get a hurry along too if it wants to participate in the program.
Apart from foreign nations getting their orders in, is the 'elephant in the room', and by that I mean the various US politicians and their lobby groups to put the pressure on to have the USN production run increased.
We've seen it a couple of times before, the C-17A program was to stop at 180, then there was another 10, then another 15 (to bring the fleet to 205), then finally stopping at 223 (including that one addition for the one lost).
And I mean the USAF production run ending at 223 (total production was 279).
Similar story too with Super Hornet Growler production.
Could the same thing happen with P-8 production? Who knows!
If the order book was going to be shut off by end of 2017 as you said, you would expect to start hearing something from Boeing sooner than later too.
Watch and wait!
Nick underscore
Member
Agree with you John.
The numbers from that document seem to me, to indicate USN only production from FY2011-FY2019.
SteveR - do you an actual link confirming Boeing is closing the production line in 2019?
I don't know were they are in regard to DO-178B however as both aircraft rely on adaptions of existing gear (DO-178B is a guide and not mandatory) BAE systems is doing the fly by wire for the KC390 I would imagine they would have covered this, However as both aircraft are being offered on the civilian international market I would assume that they are close to or have reached all necessary certification criteria. I don't know what the ASIC and the TTPC protocols are, so could you please expand on these.
Last edited:
Agree with you and it is long over due, but $NZ36m is still a significant amount of money for NZD and I don't think we will see a replacement before 2025 at the very earliest. That however is only my opinion. The elephant in the room in regard to the P8 is can it carry out the P3's normal daily tasks that they currently do, effectively, as a lot of what they do is more like the US Coast Guard than the USN. A lot will depend on the emphasis placed on the various roles to be carried out and this could be politically motivated.
NZ$36m is not that much at all for a systems upgraded considering the amount spent upon the two ANZAC frigates. I think you are splitting hairs here, much like your arguments on the landing distance requirements. The point is that the P8 brings to the table a completely new set of capabilities that do not require it to get low and dirty like the P3. It has technology that gives it the ability to undertake the OODA loop from a stand off position unobserved whether it is ASW / ASuW / maritime surveillance / ISR. It can and is able to undertake SAR and it can get down low and dirty if it has too.
Yes, there is and there always will be a political dimension to any NZ defence acquisition and yes this has to be factored in, however they are only one part of the overall assessment algorithm that is utilised and unfortunately one that sometimes cannot be accurately forecast due to the length of temporal period involved.
I've had observer status into the P8 prog at various early stages.
the capability difference between P8 and P3 is chalk and cheese. As you infer, the CONOPs is different between the 2 because the P8 can undertake core tasks under very different flight parameters
without going into specifics, at the ISR level the P8 is the superior asset on any given day. at the persistence, projection and other core parameters, they are a golden mile ahead of the P3.
I'd argue that it's sensor capability makes it superior to some dedicated AEW aircraft in some other air forces.
I understand what the P8 brings to the table and was asking the question as to its suitability for our day to day operations which in many respects are more of a coast guard function were you need to gather evidence of a wrong doing acceptable to the courts. Other users such as the Australians and the US have a dedicated service to carry out this role. My argument on the landing distance was more on were they could be based. I am not one to hang my coat on a concept and not explore every thing around it, and are quite prepared to explore every avenue and if I am wrong ,so be it, my ego is not so entrenched that it bothers me. To bloody old for that.
I would assume that runway lengths are available to compare? Unsure what NZ's civ-av authority is, but military airfields are generally avail as emergency access for civ events, so the data should be there