Just curious, what exactly does a P8 have over everything else? I do like the P8 but there are other options out there and also prop options which I assumed would be better for low slow loitering when required. I thought it was more about thecombination of gear on the inside not nescessarily the way it got there that defined its capabilities and was just a matter of upgrading or is this P8 specific?
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
You probably should go back through the world map and actually look, by the sounds of it you may learn some new nations.
Last edited by a moderator:
It is indeed what is inside the platform - and what that something is - is unlikely to be available on other airframes such as the mooted "baby" or "truncated" P-8 (ala G650 / Global Express) derivative or the mooted Sea130. GF12 has touched on its significance in the 5 'Eyes' world - which is where leave an exclamation mark - figuratively and literally.
Our low and slow needs are now almost another capability subset and will need to be done by 2nd tier asset. Which may even be contracted in.
A4kscooter
Member
New Zealand's dilemma is the P8 unless they purchase a basic version is unaffordable but they do require an aircraft which has sufficient endurance to patrol New Zealand's huge Economic Exclusion Zone.
The proposed Lockheed SC130J Hercules or the new medium-sized maritime surveillance aircraft based on technology developed for its P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft proposed by Boeing are options providing they actually happen.
The proposed Lockheed SC130J Hercules or the new medium-sized maritime surveillance aircraft based on technology developed for its P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft proposed by Boeing are options providing they actually happen.
Tee_Centre_10
Member
Several points to the debate to think about:
- There is no reason the RNZAF has to buy the full fat P-8. From what I've read, the Indian P-8I is a "lite" version. NZ can buy the capabilities it wants/can afford.
- I would have difficulty believing that the costs of operating/supporting the four-engined SC-130J is less than a MPA based on the almost ubiquitous 737 with even more common CFM56 turbofans. Even taking into account that the possibility that the RNZAF also operates the C-130J and therefore could operate common airframes, engines and cockpits.
- I would be interested in seeing the acquisition costs of the SC-130J by the time you make the airframe and then stuff it full of P-8 or P-8-lite electronics. The costs of a basic C-130J and a civil 737-800 are comparable.
- It is all very well having a MPA that can be re-roled into a transport by removing internal modules, but how useful would this be in practise? It probably wouldn't be a quick change capability and the SC-130J would still be fitted with all the external sensors and permanent equipment (reducing payload). And while the aircraft is hauling freight it isn't performing its MPA duties.
- The USN had the option of the Orion 21 with 4xTurboprops for low-slow missions and they chose the 737-based P-8, although NZ requirements may differ. One factor in this choice was that the P-8 airframe was to be used to replace the E-8 JSTARS platform.
Unaffordable? The Treasury cost-funding projections prepared for Cabinet STR 09 25/1 dated 7.12.09 outlined the funding pathways in which all three pathways included four P-8 airframes within the strategic plan. Defence and Cabinet are well aware of its cost.
Basic version? Spiral 3 + more likely given the 2025 IOC and the fact they looking at 2025-2060 geo-strategic reference. Unlike a decade ago they now understand the economic principle of marginal utility.
The mooted super bizjet baby version will be benign - all hunter no killer -envisaged for nations with their own strike alternatives.
The Sea130J does not make sense if we dont continue with the Herc family post 2020 and more significantly, will it possess the sort of networked synergies with the ADF and USN, and provide for us and those partners the first tier ISR generator capability as aspired in the DWP/10 and know doubt consolidated in DWP/15?
You must have some impressive sources to know the P-8's classified capabilities when even the highest levels of the NZ defence and Intel circle are still kept at arms length from truly knowing until any MOU is entered into.
Dilemma? Opportunity Cost? That may be the rapid irrelevance and loss of 5I's advantages that have been clawed back in recent times. There is actually more to this particular issue than many think.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,647
Affordability I don't think cost is an issue for governments. Rather the issue for government in acquiring the P8 is one of hour it will look to allies if we don't buy them and their commitment to a defence policy around a joint amphib task force.
I think there is no need to consider the Sea130J because the debate around a C130 based MPA was settled in the 1960's when NZ rejected maritime based C130's in favour of the P3.
If were going to have a debate then why not look at the airbus A319 MPA. I know its only a drawing board design, but my view is lets look at the competition and get the most bang for our buck, especially since 4 P8 would not be sufficient to maintain two for military tasking throughout the life the aircraft. 5 would be better.
I think there is no need to consider the Sea130J because the debate around a C130 based MPA was settled in the 1960's when NZ rejected maritime based C130's in favour of the P3.
If were going to have a debate then why not look at the airbus A319 MPA. I know its only a drawing board design, but my view is lets look at the competition and get the most bang for our buck, especially since 4 P8 would not be sufficient to maintain two for military tasking throughout the life the aircraft. 5 would be better.
A4kscooter:
CD
1. the replacement for the P3K will be a full on war fighter no if no buts, this is the price you pay for operating a tier 1 asset and being a part of the 5I community reorientated to the SW Pac & Asia in line with the USA & Australia. Some forget that the current P3 is far more than a MPA after the upgrade its a ISR asset that can plug & play over Land as well. A tier 2 aircraft will be procured to look after our EEZ what that plane could be is anyones guess but it will come no where close to the up graded P3 in capability.
This is hoping we actually get the C130J RNZAF could get A400M or the C2 from Japan no one knows yet still alot of planning to go before a likely RfI is released.
CD
Last edited:
A4kscooter
Member
I'm not knocking NZ because their armed forces contribution to operations surpasses many larger nations but there is no guarantee that New Zealand will purchase P8s or equivalent:
NZ was going to lease 28 x F16s - cancelled
The "Huey" replacement was to be 10 to 12 airframes - 8 ordered
They had options on 8 x C130J - 5 x C130Hs upgraded
The Navy wanted 3 x ANZACs - 2 entered service
etc etc
I hope I'm wrong in reality NZ will be lucky to get SC130J or even an aircraft such as CN295MPA
The cancellation of th F16 lease was done not for economic reasons as was claimed at the time, but because of an anti US political ideology held by a small but very powerful group within the government at the time. The then Prime Minister made a unilateral decision to cancel the deal and disband the ACF despite considerable advice to the contrary. She now works for the UN. you need to read more of Mr Cs posts to gain a feel fo his understanding and knowledge of how NZ defence procurements and policy is arrived at. The P8 will be procured because of reasons not publicly stated and some that will be. It will be a cornerstone of NZ defence and security and that is why it and not anything else will be procured. The main reason is the 5 eyes and the 1st Tier capability of the P8. If you google the term "5 eyes" it will give you the meaning. The Radio NZ story states it best.
The reasons the C130J wasn't taken was again because of the same Prime Minister her anti US political leanings. The reasons why only two ANZAC frigates were purchased was purely economic because at that time the country could not afford them. This was 5 - 8 years after the 1984 general election when the country was well and truly broke. The RNZN wanted four ANZACS, three at a minimum. It got two. The Army was run down and needed equipment replacement as did the RNZN and RNZAF. People tend to forget that NZs population and hence tax base is the same size as Sydney, NSW, but the NZG has far greater responsibilities.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Other, kiwi members of DT could provide better information, but there does seem to have been an element within Gov't which has realized that the NZDF has been cut back, with capabilities having been lost due to a lack of proper funding, to the point where the force could break under the right (or perhaps wrong) conditions. Perhaps more importantly, the public perception has begun to change.
Under prior Gov'ts the NZDF funding was slashed, and it seems that this was done deliberately to limit/weaken the NZDF, as well as increase the diplomatic distance between NZDF and friendly nations like the US.
There were also steps taken were money was IMO wasted, because the "cheaper" options were taken. The C-130H SLEP is a prime example. $50 mil. per aircraft was spent to upgrade, modernize and extend the life of aircraft which had served the RNZAF for approx. four decades. For approx. $15 mil. more per aircraft, new C-130J aircraft could have been purchased which could potentially serve another forty years... Who ever signed off on the upgrade vs. replacement either never looked at the long term VfM, or did not care.
At this point NZ is regaining access and trust with other, key partners. In order for that to be maintained, never mind improving the relationship, then interoperability is needed. In order for this to be accomplished, at least some examples of advanced kit like the P-8 Poseidon are needed. Not necessarily a 1:1 ratio, but certainly three or four in order for the NZDF to maintain a limited deployment with friendly forces.
-Cheers
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Something I would like clarification on. I was under the impression that the RNZN purchased two ANZAC-class FFH's, and could exercise an option to get a third (or perhaps fourth as well) IIRC the cutoff date for exercising the options was some time with in the last ten years.
If my recollection is correct, it would be nice if someone could confirm that. That would also suggest or reinforce the notion that prior Gov'ts were rather deliberately underfunding the NZDF.
-Cheers
We had two options that we could have used until 1998 iirc.
It became an election issue, with the government eventually held together only via a coalition partner that was against taking up the option - despite what the majority party may have wanted.
Hence in the interest of forming a government the frigates were dropped.
The coalition eventually collapsed and the government remained intact by the skin of its teeth with a small number of independents iirc, and several options were looked at - taking up one or two new ones or a second hand RAN one, but with similar results - government would have collapsed if they were purchased.
Since 20% of value of the entire combined project had to be spent in NZ we got a pretty good deal on only two ships !
Last edited:
I had forgotten about that coalition. Remember Peters was and still is a Muldoon disciple. I agree that durin the 1990s and probably up until 2007 - 08 it would have been difficult getting major warlike purchases approved by cabinet or supported in the public arena. IMHO the only reason that the Clark Labour Govt bought the defence equip it did was because it had no choice and where it could it stayed away from US equipment.
Muldoon was the culprit who started the second hand defence equipment run with the used RN Leander class frigates Dido & Bacchante buys to replace Otago and Taranaki. The Andover buy was good and at the time the only capable aircraft to replace the C47s and Bristol Freighters. What should have happened buying three ANZACs but as has been previously said that purchase was highly politicised by the likes of Uncle Helen, Goff, Mallard, and their ilk. It was them who really made the F16 deal a political hot potato and election issue.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,655
One of the issues arising from the last National coalition is that National all but ceded Defence policy to Labour by virtual of its inability to commit to major capital purchases, notwithstanding the f-16 deal. I'm increasingly of the view that in an MMP environment that the min size of the NZDF, including equipment should form part of any written consitution. It is the only practical way to overcome some of the short sighted thinking thats occurred over the last twenty years.
Last remaining Skyhawkes sold
End of the line for out remaining ACF Skyhawkes & Aermacchis have finally been sold to a US Firm:
New Zealand Air Force Jets Sale To US Firm Gets... | Stuff.co.nz
One A4K will go back to Australia for there museum.
CD
End of the line for out remaining ACF Skyhawkes & Aermacchis have finally been sold to a US Firm:
New Zealand Air Force Jets Sale To US Firm Gets... | Stuff.co.nz
One A4K will go back to Australia for there museum.
CD
The Australian one is already back there at the RAN musuem and painted up in RAN FAA sea camo colours with the RNZAF No 2 Sqn motif on it. Looks really good & from all accounts they have done a brilliant job with it. This is story on Drakens aims NEW AGGRESSOR IN THE COMMERCIAL ADVERSARY SUPPORT GAME: DRAKEN INTERNATIONAL BETS BIG ON RED AIR | aviationintel
Draken Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.379820038739125.99690.120651064656025&type=1 because Flickr now wants a Yahoo sign in
NH90 and 109
Managed to get a a good look around and guided tour of both the NH90 and 109 when they flew up to Rotorua and parked in the Energy Event Centre carpark for the day last week. Also had a good talk to the guys. Apparently the Government have allocated $48m for the 3 addtional 109s, but no word yet on a delivery schedule.
Also one of the guys expressed his opinion that 2 AW139s would have been a better option than 3 more 109s as there is such a big size and capability gap between the 109 and NH90. Won't be happening though. Both machines were very impressive and a big thanks to the guys for showing me around
Managed to get a a good look around and guided tour of both the NH90 and 109 when they flew up to Rotorua and parked in the Energy Event Centre carpark for the day last week. Also had a good talk to the guys. Apparently the Government have allocated $48m for the 3 addtional 109s, but no word yet on a delivery schedule.
Also one of the guys expressed his opinion that 2 AW139s would have been a better option than 3 more 109s as there is such a big size and capability gap between the 109 and NH90. Won't be happening though. Both machines were very impressive and a big thanks to the guys for showing me around
Agreed AW139s would be better then additional A109s however that does bring the headaches of another fleet unless maybe there is a good enough maritime version 139 to replace seasprite or take on romeo in which case we could purchase both maritime and land based platforms and still keep fleet numbers down(although I guess the same could be said for romeos and blackhawks to a degree).
The 109s are just so small, although alot more operationally useful then a sioux but not as much cabin space as a Iroqois. Although the NH90 is the hueys direct replacement the high operating cost and size will make some current tasks a financial burden in these fiscally tight times so may well work out cheaper in the long run to fund a mid capability helo rather than more smaller helos.
Nh90
Agreed the 109s are very small inside and the cabin floor is not dissimilar to the interior of a car with a sill around the edge of it. One of the guys was saying they were working with the SAS to use them as a platform for a sniper, but were encountering difficulties as the SAS prefer to snipe from a prone position and the floor of the 109 makes this a bit difficult. Be interesting to see if this can be solved.
Agreed the 109s are very small inside and the cabin floor is not dissimilar to the interior of a car with a sill around the edge of it. One of the guys was saying they were working with the SAS to use them as a platform for a sniper, but were encountering difficulties as the SAS prefer to snipe from a prone position and the floor of the 109 makes this a bit difficult. Be interesting to see if this can be solved.