First off, I am NOT saying we should introduce, I AM saying we should sit and watch the South Koreans and see what that turns out like and if positive investigate an option ourselves. As you have pointed out there are alot of unknowns. What you haven't pointed out is that for a major and demanding air service (US Navy) they were a well proven, versatile and well liked system.
Triton/ hawk are still in their infancy as not only a technology but also as a concept. They have yet to prove themselves operable against a capable and sophisticated opponent. So if a S-3B buy were to detract from P-8's I would not likely to be keen. As an alternative to Triton more so.
Tritons 24hour endurance yes it is impressive but to counter that having more airframes of a simpler solution could cover more area simultaneously whilst allowing some contingency. If Triton works and we already bought S-3B we still have 50-80% (wide margin I realise) of that capability. If, and it is an 'if', Triton is rendered impotent during a war when we need it most then we are left with alot less. Again people more in the know will have to research this and decide when the time comes but I hope the look at a few options first. Sth Korea aren't a pack of fools if they see merit in this at a time when they are being motivated externally as they are there must be something here.
Whilst it would be a new airframe, new servicing regime etc it isn't a different mission. Some principles of the P-3 operations would be transferable. This wouldn't make it easy job to stand up but it isn't the same as FOC for a new ACF. As to $200 to $300 million. That is subject to conditions neither of us could know but I reckon your on song there. If that were the money we are talking and we needed an increase in MPA presence around the EEZ soonish this could be the cost we need to pay for success. Sovereignty is a hard thing to value and Triton might not be suitable in an emerging time frame that could be subject to a period of greater complexity. Not to say we should panic and become a war economy.
As to the money tree at the bottom of the South Island people are theorizing about such a thing right now in the great southern basin also in the Hawkes bay region with shale deposits. If we did reap any benefit from such deposits (I'm skeptical -we lack the necessary response and engineering infrastructure) air force surveillance (disaster monitoring, search and rescue) would need to be catered for this aswell. Hence looking at options to increase our MPA capabilities.
Frankly your assumptions are all valid questions that need to be looked at, and satisfied before consideration to be given to committing to such a plan. However lets not be too negative about it till we know abit more.
Can I ask what your back round is? Might help frame your concerns.
Shane,
South Korea has an annual defence budget in excess of $30 Billion, NZ has an annual defence budget of around $3 Billion, SK has 1,000% more money available each and every year to sustain and grow it's defence force.
I am certainly not saying that SK are a 'pack of fools' as you suggest, SK with the size of their defence budget and size of it's military, will easily be able to absorb and sustain a fleet of S-3's to operate alongside their fleet of P-3's if it choses to do so, no question of that all.
My question is, can New Zealand? And I think the answer to that is no, especially without a significant and sustained increase in defence spending, or at worst, a reduction in 'other' capabilities to pay for an additional 'new' capability such as the S-3.
My concerns are purely based around the facts that NZ has a relatively small defence budget (and doesn't look like significantly increasing anytime soon) and to add a new capability will distort and disrupt the current force structure adversely.
The NZDF has a lot of equipment coming up for replacement over the coming decade or so, I think it's going to be hard pressed to find all the dollars necessary to do that. (Australia has a large shopping list of equipment too and we spend a hell of lot more money, but I still doubt, at current spending levels, that all that is on the shopping list will actually materialise, I hope I'm wrong!).
NZ currently operates 6 P-3's, the RNZAF will be lucky if there is enough money available to replace them all on a 'one for one' basis with six P-8's, let alone add a Sqn of S-3's too.
As a comparison the RAAF is looking to replace its remaining 18 P-3's with 8 P-8's and 7 Tritons (though there has been some recent reports suggesting that the air force is looking at the 'mix' and thinks that a force of 12 P-8's and 6 Tritons would be a better fit, eg, following the USN's approx two to one ratio).
I don't know if NZ would even be able to afford a combined fleet of P-8's and Triton's too, but I think that would be the far better solution for the many years ahead.
In your posts you appear to be putting great emphasis on 'combat' capabilities or as you said, 'maritime enforcement etc in peer to peer high intensity conflict scenarios', of course the Triton is not a combat aircraft as such, but it certainly will have a significant role in a combat situation, be it in long endurance ISR missions in a coastal situation or deep ocean Maritime Recon missions, providing information back so that a P-8, or naval asset, could respond appropriately.
One last thing Shane, no need to shout with 'NOT' or 'AM' at the beginning of your post, I read you loud and clear, and please don't assume that I am being 'negative', nothing could be further from the truth, just being realistic in my assessment of what NZ could afford, or more wisely spend, its very limited defence dollars on.
I want to see a strong NZ defence force (as much as I want to see a strong Australian defence force), just being realistic is all.
Cheers,
