There was a new 17 aircraft order for the USN as of 31 March, that had 32 options attached...
I don't think the order book is closing anytime soon for the P-8A...
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
I don't think the order book is closing anytime soon for the P-8A...
They have not yet really tapped into the Gulf States market. There are other US aligned nations in Asia as well.
Totally agree, There is unlikely to be any surplus or extra's
Yes, this is not a conformation of a sale, it is simply a case of all the i's being dotted and the t's crossed before the business case evolves. The other final respondents, government authorities would also be asked for the same permissions, authorities and prices before the final decision is made. The results of which we have not been made aware of as other organisations can be more circumspect on the release of what they consider confidential information. This early release could easily could turn into a "frigate like" political football and not be in our best interests. We can only hope it does not with the election looming.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
A Fairfax media report notes the NZDF as saying the aircraft price "is likely to be less than that" as quoted by the DSCA and any purchasing decisions may come sooner rather than later. That would be wise due to the world-wide reduced availability of P-3 Orion spares (as also discussed here recently).
So if NZ is to maintain the ability to patrol 30 million kilometres of ocean (and see interesting European transposition for reference) as well as conduct missions much further afield, and seamlessly link to other NZ/Australian/US intelligence and surveillance assets as well as future proof a long term investment with other emerging and unmanned technologies, I'd seriously doubt the Opposition parties would be able to dream up a viable & cost-effective alternative!
Last edited:
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
John
There is no doubt that the P8 is a capable platform but does it capabilities and cost reflect what it will do within the NZDF. From multiple venues currently serving and former members have spoken about the primary mission of the P3 in NZ service is and has been SAR. In comparison to other nations P3 fleets the NZ P3K has been striped of its ability to detect and prosecute submarines and it has never had an ASM to deal with surface targets outside of SAM range. That's why $$$ is being spent to retrofit the existing aircraft to have some modern ability to detect subs. The primary role of the P8 is not SAR. It is a naval strike aircraft with extensive surveillance capabilities that far exceed NZ's domestic requirements.
With only a potential four airframes that theoretically placed one overseas and one available for domestic flights. Not enough in my view. I realize that the B200 replacement will have some MR capacity but this will be likely limited in capability.
The wholesale change of operations to high altitude will have a detrimental effect on the typical day to day bread and butter operations of the squadron. We have discussed this reality of differences of opinion on platforms and five eyes participation in previous pages of this thread. I strongly believe that not every like minded nation needs to have the same platforms. A mix of platforms offers commanders options. If this happens and P8 is purchased it will be a quantum leap for the RNZAF but I fear efficiencies will be lost.
You will notice my same slant on the F35 as well on other threads. I'm not one to drink the Kool Aid. I believe in any nation having the ability to defend their sovereignty by force if necessary but that force must be appropriate.
Before you ask, my preference has been Kawasaki P1 plus a tag on to the RAF Reaper contract to allow an armed UCAV to perform long endurance wide area surveillance. But I am half a world away from NZ and will likely never set foot on her shores let alone have any influence on the outcome.
From my understanding that statement isn't correct. RNZAF's P-3K's have never had their ASW equipment 'stripped' it just wasn't updated when the rest of the aircraft was, due to the then ideologue based NZ Government of the time deciding to focus the P-3K capability on a narrow operational role. The capability never went away however (more importantly nor did the need, quite to the contrary actually) and the subsequent upgrade (note 'upgrade' not 'replacement' or 'addition') simply rectified what had been a bad situation for NZ's sovereignty.
OS deployments will only ever occur within the context of overall tasking priorities for the NZDF. Certainly NZ have rarely had issue with deploying B757's as required, from an operational fleet of two... (Maintenance issues notwithstanding).
What efficiencies will the P-1 bring on a day to day basis, that the P-8 won't I wonder? There will however be absolutely no efficiencies to be exploited when those RNZAF P-1's have to work with the RAAF / USN P-8A's from the same airbase on a regular basis, with no capability whatsoever to reach into those supply chains as needed and no efficiencies to be exploited when RNZAF cannot put staff into the training systems set up for P-8A operators...
In addition there is plenty of domestic New Zealand capacity and expertise in supporting the Boeing 737 platform, with Air New Zealand's engineering and maintenance division. How much capacity and expertise is there within NZ to support the P-1 platform?
You talk about RNZAF's operational requirements with the P-3K as a reason not to acquire P-8A, but then advocate armed Reapers, that aren't designed for maritime patrol?
Sorry dude, but that is 'out of the box' I'm afraid...
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Nova,
At the end of the day everyone is entitled to their opinion, no problem, but I do find what you have said above a bit contradictory.
On the one hand you say that a P-8A will 'far exceed' NZ requirements as the P-3K2's current primary mission is SAR, but you also mention that those airframes are being upgraded with a submarine detection capability (which as I understand it is very similar to the systems installed on the P-8A), and I don't believe that the ASW capability was stripped, just not upgraded to 'current' standards.
What that tells me is that if the P-8A is selected, it will build on the capabilities that are being 'reintroduced/upgraded' on the P-3K2 fleet and not be a whole range of 'new' capabilities.
You also say that the primary role of the P-8A is not SAR. It is a naval strike aircraft with extensive surveillance capabilities, but you also say that the Kawasaki P-1 is your preference, doesn't the P-1 also have a 'similar' weapons capability to the P-8A?
Doesn't that also mean that a P-1 also far exceeds what you suggest is the NZ requirement too?
Just because the P-1 and P-8A are both 'capable' of being armed with ASW and AShM weapons (such as Harpoon) does that mean that NZ will actually acquire AShM weapons for example? If it doesn't, should both types be excluded? I think not.
As far the 6 P-3K2's being replaced with possibly only 4 airframes such as the P-8A (or P-1), that is certainly a factor that the NZ Gov has to consider, but then I also remember for example that when the search was on for MH370, that the comment was made about the various aircraft assets that were sent to search for MH370 (including P-1 and P-8A), that the P-8A went 'further and for longer' than any other asset in the search area.
Cost, from what I've seen reported the cost of the P-8A airframe has substantially reduced in recent times , last thing I read it appeared to be cheaper per airframe than a P-1.
As far as a UAV, why Reaper? If the NZ Gov was to go down that path then the Mariner version would be far more suitable, Triton would be better still.
And I really don't understand why you say "not every like minded nation needs to have the same platforms. A mix of platforms offers commanders options", does it? How?
I would have though that if the ANZUS partners have the same shared high level capabilities, P-8A and Triton, at their disposal in our part of the world working together seamlessly, is far more of a 'plus' than each partner using something completely different to each other, how does each partner having something 'different' give commanders options? Sorry I don't get that.
Anyway, you might be half a world away, I'm only across the 'ditch' in Oz, and neither of us will have any influence on what NZ does, but I would hope that the decision that NZ does make is not just for 'today' but for the 30 years that the new assets will be in service, if it's capabilities 'exceed' what is required today, they may not exceed what is required by the end of those 30 years of service life.
a few of us spent a number of weeks trying to inject some reality into the debate...
and just as the logic dictated, its come to pass
I am going to reinforce what ADMk2 posted and I am not going to regurgitate the fake news in your post.
First of all the ASW components were never stripped, but were never updated, AFAIK since 1965. The primary role of the P8 is not a naval strike aircraft, but a 5th generation multirole aircraft in every sense of the definition.
What are NZ's domestic requirements? Pray do tell us and dazzle us with your wisdom? The NZ requirements are defined and stipulated by the NZ Government, who have access to information that we don't. Whilst we may not agree with all of their decisions or the reasoning why, we do not have a seat at the Cabinet table. That's politics and in the end in NZ the pollies always make the final decision regarding acquisitions. At least we do have a functioning acquisitions system.
The P1 is not all that a great advantage over a P3C, in fact I characterise it as a P3 with turbofans. If failed to meet the requirements stipulated by the NZG in the RFI. End of story.
A Reaper in Kiwi markings? The NZG hasn't even formulated a RPAS policy for Defence yet, so something like a Reaper ain't gonna happen, plus they aren't what we need for the maritime domain. If the NZG decide to go down that path, the MQ4C Triton would be the optimal option.
nz has embeds within adf, any future force decisions in nz are closely discussed between us - and they like us are making 30-40 year selections
we spent a few weeks discussing why the other maritime surveillance options just didn't cut it - and as predicted P8 has come to pass.
future force development options were staring people in the face for a variety of reasons
nz's combat capability scenarios were going to be closely aligned to oz, so the other platforms getting thrown into the air never made sense from a variety of assessment points and perspectives
at the end of the day, future force planning included all those things which people like Mr C persistently tried to gently reinforce for weeks on end and which typically get ignored in platform centric discussions.
reality always has to drive the force planning bus.
never understood all the excitement around the kwakka p1, it was never a serious contender, its a bastardised orion and with less capability within the construct of nz conops. for nz where efficiency via capability multipliers is important, the p1 was never going to cut it within the ccs reqs
reaper also is a non starter. nz's bam issues are similar to australia, bang for buck is a p8/mq4 bams pairing
the flight profile and conops for a reaper doesn't synchronise with nz bams reqs, and for almost identical reasons
With regard to the RNZAF MPA / MMA, the most important point, is the software in the P8 and how that is used and upgraded. The RAAF are leading the way in that area with their work on the Wedgetail and they are transferring that methodology through to the P-8. So how the crew rail / stations work on the P8 are totally different to that on the P-3, as is the methodology and process for initiating and managing upgrades. As a general statement, todays hardware is long lasting and usually adaptable, however it is the software that is really the empowering factor. That is what people are not getting and it is why I say that the platform is just a taxi service for the capability. Today it's all about systems and how they interact, communicate, to inform the decision making process and executive actions.
yep, as I have repeatedly said in the past, at the sensor sharing and distribution level the P8 is a quantum leap ahead of others, its literally a game changer for ASW/ISR in capability as F35 is to changing what smalls could do
just as people miss the point on F35 and focus on "stealth" rather than the sensor distibution/enablers, its similar with the P8's. the ASW components are just a fraction of what they bring to the table
its not the planes that are the game changers - its the capabilities within them.
if you look at Plan Jericho, everything that can be, wil be a sensor sharer, multiplier and/or distributor.
as it is for situational appreciation its also for weapons management.
and like subs, when it comes to ISR and common/combat operating picture management, the advantage lies with the bigger assets as they have the energy management so have built in "fat"
Lgjonesxjs
New Member
T6-C strike?
Exactly couldn't agree more there is No alternative to the P8a. On a different topic and only because I can't find a suitable thread. I am new here and still learning my way round forums. The RNZAF Texan 2s T6-C which was purchased as a trainer doesn't it have 6 hardened STORES points? The literature indicates it does in which case it's capable of carrying all sorts of stores including side winder and guns. Excellent for light CAS and does this mean the kiwis have reinstated their strike component?a few of us spent a number of weeks trying to inject some reality into the debate...
and just as the logic dictated, its come to pass
Last edited by a moderator:
Gidday cobber. Welcome to the forum. Yes the RNZAF Texans do have the capabilities for armament, stores as per the aircraft literature. No we haven't reinstated any form of CAS :cry
Lgjonesxjs
New Member
Thanks for the welcome. At least they have the capability to up arm and train for combat. Something that I and I warrant not a lot of other people would have been aware of. Not from the sources I found anyway.
Cheers LJ
C
the vanilla texans that have been used for COIN and CAS by DEA/ATF/alphabets in South America have pylons, I would have assumed that it would be a universal capability....
RNZAF Texans caried underwing fuel tanks on their delivery flights so they definitely have hardpoints. The tanks were returned as not needed - pretty sure none were retained.
T6C is capable of fairly rudamentary weaons delivery - basically eyeball aiming! The AT6 has the sensors & other systems required to make the a/c a 'decent' light attack / CAS aircraft.
Of course RNZAF has neither the weapons nor the desire (or need!) to use the T6C in this capacity. If they ever moved in that direction the AT6 would make more sense. But one has to ask what the 'trigger point' would be to see that requirement evolve.