I assume that RNZAF (like RAAF) was looking at the P8 numbers for MH370 missions.
night and day when compared to AP3-C mission data
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
night and day when compared to AP3-C mission data
GF out of interest at the RAAF P-8A fitted for air to air refueling like the E-7A Wedgetails? I am given to understand that the USN ones aren't due to inter-service politics (USAF spitting the dummy).
P-8A Poseidon - Royal Australian Air Force - Royal Australian Air Force
KC-30A Multi Role Tanker Transport - Royal Australian Air Force
http://www.airforce.gov.au/Technolo...System/?RAAF-BYjCaU6eHptQ3E2EiHw9jKOLJvauES8Y
Triton is parked outside my place of work
the RAAF outfitted the KC-30 with both USAF and USN refueling solutions
Very likely. You know they may still be filtering through the final numbers decision.
We have had the minister in the house make a reference to getting four airframes sometime ago, a cabinet document from 2009 pencilling in four P-8's. That number is only indicative and we wont know until when a contract is signed.
Things have changed since then as they (Cabinet) appear to have grown to understand defence capabilities and acquisitions better, plus the $20 billion CAPEX announced last year which does give them wiggle room. I think that if that CAPEX had been available 2 years ago, 2 whitetail C-17s may not have been such a problem. There is going to be 2 - 3 elections between now and when the contract will be signed for the P-3K2 replacement and in Kiwi politics a lot can happen between then and now. The 2018 DMRR may shed some light on their thinking.
Someone somewhere is going to loose one. And with no way to replace it, once production ceased.
US can probably lose a few and still be ok. The rest of the operators will be in much more trouble, espec those with the smallest fleets.
It is the Catch 22 - too expensive to buy more than bare minimum or allow for attrition, too small a fleet to get by if any attrition, and even more compounded by short time in production.
everyone factors in attrition to acquisition
If the politicians give them the finances to do so.
F-22, B-2 are examples where any losses are unusually uncomfortable due lack of airframes, and line closed.
Australian Army CH-47D was a sort of an example, although as line still very active and surplus US airframes available it was manageable.
My point is supporting Ngati, that with production life very limited this makes having a absolutely bare minimum number of airframes for requirement in something that is a core capability and will be expected to be in service for many decades, 4 P-8's for NZ will be risky. That assumes long range Maratime Patrol and SAR are regarded as core to NZ national interest
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Not sure about the concerns on support for P-8s once production ends. As Ngatimozart mentioned, most upgrades will be software based. Also, the P-8 is a derivative of the 737-8 so there will be many common components I would think.
I've been involved on both sides of the fence
the attrition rate is part of the assessment matrix - it is factored in
govt decisions on final numbers aren't based on the exclusion of the attrition estimates. whatever final numbers come out of the final contract include the attrition estimates
if you get 4 then someone will have run the numbers and said that you will lose one frame in the next 30 years to either platform faults or human error.
sometimes the strategic and tactical decisions will get rewritten and other artifacts will be sought to try and back-fill if that fleet is determined to be critical to the future force structure and the immediate threats to the national interest.
RAAF is a good example when you look at changes in fleet numbers for F/A-18A/B F/A-18F, Growlers and F-111
In the examples of rotary assets - it was also impacted by changes in service force development and purple force developments. the critical fulcrum to the changes that affected other fleet (air, land and sea) elements was the LHA decision
eg there's a tendency for some to look at the LHA's purely in the ARG/ESG role - when a big unstated role which has far broader implications is the ESB role
at the ESB role, lift and changes to supporting rotary around that lift demand are front and centre. that resulted in broader and suddenly rapid turnarounds in heavy, medium and light lift fixed wing fleets getting finalised.
in the case of F-22 and the B2 closure of the lines is the prerogative of the govt of the day - the attrition numbers still stand whatever the cap becomes - just in a different ratio. the argument around whether those numbers can be defended by the govt when the services wanted more still doesn't alter the fact that there is a crunched up number which then re-adjusts the attrition figures
the other thing is that attrition out of assessment necessity is a platform centric value - govts when they make a decision expect the services to come back and work with the adjustments on the overall capability impact.
eg if "we" lose F-22 is that picked up by JSF and more effective air to air, if "we" lose B2 is that going to be picked up by forthcoming long range hypersonic strike
the value propositions for platform/fleet are not the same as capability/tactical/strategic intent/posture
good examples
every subsea transoceanic submarine communications cable in the world is now fibreoptic. the original FO cable is now more than 25 years old. the data rate changes from that first subsea FO cable has exponentially changed - none of the cables have been replaced, they are still the same. whats changed has been the algorithms used to manage the shovelling of that data down the pipes. those data rates are extraordinary compared to original performance, but they are black box improvements
in the case of P8's, the wild card capability developments are around UAS and BAMs - the manned solutions are still critical, but the capability advances are coming from UAS, distributed NCW and the philosophy that used to frazzle CAS - the solutions are not platform centric, its a capability issue where everything that can be bussed and fight to the threat should be engaged and participate in that fight.
eg an Abrams tank with Link16 can transmit to a JSF about target co-ord, the JSF could pass that on to an E7 or a P8 etc... or any combination thereof.
platform centric arguments need careful injection into the debate because everyone is shifting to capability and broader fleet prosecution arguments
was intending to veer the topic offline, but the external examples do have some conceptual relevance here
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Talking of BAMS, I was just reading an article in APDR:
Asia Pacific Defence Reporter : APDR Feb 2017, Page 1
(It's free to read, as long as you register).
The interesting part of the article was talking about 'future proofing' Triton.
Apparently during construction, the wings have been manufactured to include hard points and internal wiring, so if the USN eventually decides to add external stores (either weapons or additional sensors), the future potential capability exists, even though at this stage there doesn't appear to be a requirement.
Phoenix Field at McMurdo is up and running, with the first pax C-17 flight last month. The article below is has a bit about Pegasus Field.
Phoenix Airfield Rising
Phoenix Airfield Rising
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I am betting the baggage service at NZFX is better than any airport in North America. No lost bags either! Great pictures BTW.
The RNZAF have announced that the RAF are bringing an A-400M to the 80th Anniversary Air Tattoo at Ohakea later this month. The aircraft will be only undertaking a static display. This deployment is subject to any short-notice operational requirements or unforeseen circumstances.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Is this the first time Nz gets a look at A400 M up close, is this just purely coincidental, or could it be Airbus trying to gets its foot in the door before anyone else does?
First time for the aircraft in NZ, but a previous CAF has been for a flight on it in UK during an airshow* and a B757 full of RNZAF personnel had a look through one on static display at the 2015 Avalon Air Show.
*Airbus took a whole lot of CAFs for a flight.
The A400 is scheduled to come back to Avalon for the airshow after its NZ visit but only for the trade days. However it will be good to see the NZ Hercules put through a handling display at Avalon this year. The current description on the Avalon flying program page -
"Tactical Handling Demo by the RNZAF C-130 - Big but manoeuvrable this freighter flies like a fighter"
The NH-90s are now cleared to operate on to ships domestically and internationally. This was announced in the latest Air Force News.
Last edited:
NZ Herald article on the RAF A-400M coming to Ohakea this weekend. The article is also talking up the KC-390 as well.
Heavy metal: Airbus plane like a Hercules on steroids swooping in to NZ to woo Defence chiefs
Heavy metal: Airbus plane like a Hercules on steroids swooping in to NZ to woo Defence chiefs