Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Gibbo]

Australia does calculate its acquisition costs differently to NZ, however the P8 will not be cheap and the price tag will make eyeballs dropout. At the end of the day to acquire 4 P-8's and small basic patrol platform based on the B350ER is still going to be essentially a $2 Billion project.

The political dimension is clear - on one side of the house you will likely get the above or similar capability or close to it. On the other side of the house you will get only a second tier platform and certainly not a tier 1 replacement for the P3K2. That assumption is of course based on current political discourse and defence posture, which in my view is unlikely to change within the next decade when the big decision will finally be made.

Yes you've hit the 'political dimension' nail perfectly on the head. There is no longer a bipartisan approach to defence, which can make life difficult for NZDF as projects have naturally long lead times that can span different Govt's with different views.

Personally I'd be more than happy with 4 x P8 + 5 x tier-2 twin turboprops but the project team tasked with selling that are really going to have to pull all the stops to do a really classy sales job on Govt & public - and starting now! Soften them up for a large price tag so that the Govt doesn't give them some unrealistic budget ceiling to work within.

 

[KiwiRob]

Personally I'd be more than happy with 4 x P8 + 5 x tier-2 twin turboprops but the project team tasked with selling that are really going to have to pull all the stops to do a really classy sales job on Govt & public - and starting now! Soften them up for a large price tag so that the Govt doesn't give them some unrealistic budget ceiling to work within.

What I wonder is if 4 P8 would be enough, even with an additional fleet of 2nd tier MPA's NZ still has a huge area to cover, I would think the minimum number would be 5, any less and the fleet would be pretty stretched IMO.

 

[Gibbo]

What I wonder is if 4 P8 would be enough, even with an additional fleet of 2nd tier MPA's NZ still has a huge area to cover, I would think the minimum number would be 5, any less and the fleet would be pretty stretched IMO.

Ideally I'd like to see 1:1 replacement but given the price tag for that I think it's wishful thinking. There'd be no $$$ left for tier-2 fleet and new transports etc.

 

[KiwiRob]

Critical mass, I think 4 would be too few, sometimes the govt will just have to bite the bullet, it's a 1 off purchase which will be in service for decades.

 

[Lucasnz]

I tend to agree 4 P-8 won't be enough, when you look at the current requirements. Current Budget Standards call for 2 P-3K being available for military tasks at any one time. If you factor in one is typically available for SAR then 5 is the minimum number allowing for 1 in Depot Level Maintenance and 1 in routine Maintenance.

This is my take on Treasury / defence planning documents. They call for 4 P-8, 4 Maritime UAV and I think 4 Tier 2. Tier 2 can do the short-medium range SAR. If you factor long range SAR been a UAV requirement, If NZ went down the Trition route then potentially its ability to carry an internal SAR payload could remove the need for one P-8, however this leaves us short on any reserve capability with the P-8, especially once the mid life updates start, unless the Tier 2 have long range tanks.

Given the set up costs for the Australian Trition purchase it would be more cost effective (on acquisition costs) to dump the UAV and purchase the 5 P-8 and 5 Tier 2, but NZDF factors in through life which has two many variables to consider here. Personally I'd be happy to dump the UAV.

 

[ngatimozart]

I tend to agree 4 P-8 won't be enough, when you look at the current requirements. Current Budget Standards call for 2 P-3K being available for military tasks at any one time. If you factor in one is typically available for SAR then 5 is the minimum number allowing for 1 in Depot Level Maintenance and 1 in routine Maintenance.

This is my take on Treasury / defence planning documents. They call for 4 P-8, 4 Maritime UAV and I think 4 Tier 2. Tier 2 can do the short-medium range SAR. If you factor long range SAR been a UAV requirement, If NZ went down the Trition route then potentially its ability to carry an internal SAR payload could remove the need for one P-8, however this leaves us short on any reserve capability with the P-8, especially once the mid life updates start, unless the Tier 2 have long range tanks.

Given the set up costs for the Australian Trition purchase it would be more cost effective (on acquisition costs) to dump the UAV and purchase the 5 P-8 and 5 Tier 2, but NZDF factors in through life which has two many variables to consider here. Personally I'd be happy to dump the UAV.

In an ideal world I think 6 P82 would be acquired, that aint gonna happen. So I think most we could hope for would be 5. How I see it is 5 minimum P8MMA and 6 x 2nd tier MPA ASW & ASuW capable. I cannot see us getting Triton but maybe one day a more cost effective BAMS will eventually emerge.

 

[MrConservative]

In an ideal world I think 6 P82 would be acquired, that aint gonna happen. So I think most we could hope for would be 5. How I see it is 5 minimum P8MMA and 6 x 2nd tier MPA ASW & ASuW capable. I cannot see us getting Triton but maybe one day a more cost effective BAMS will eventually emerge.

I don't think we will be getting an MPA at the 2nd tier when a MPS platform will suffice.

The actual difference between a vanilla B350ER with basic search radar and comms suite versus a B350ER with Link 16 and all the toys ISR version is dramatic. Check out what the Saudi's are paying for their four B350ER ISR versions + package. Let alone an actual 2nd tier MPA ASW & ASuW. We are essentially looking for a Coastwatch platform - that's all.

Evidence submitted by Airbus Military to the UK Defence Committee when looking at the UK's Future Maritime Surveillance noted that an Airbus C295 MPA is circa £50 million.

If the NZ dollar remains strong maybe a 5th P-8 is do-able and maybe 5 vanilla Coastwatchers based on the B350-ER.

Of course there is the gutted P-32K option. Where following the introduction of the P-8 the P-3's are gutted of their recent installed kit and then transplanted on a twin prop commercial airframe such as the Q300 in the MPS role. Which is a variation on one lefty policy analysts solution of not buying a new P-3 replacement and actually doing that to save money so we could spend it on all the starving little kiddies in South Auckland and plant carbon neutral hemp plants.

 

[ngatimozart]

I don't think we will be getting an MPA at the 2nd tier when a MPS platform will suffice.

The actual difference between a vanilla B350ER with basic search radar and comms suite versus a B350ER with Link 16 and all the toys ISR version is dramatic. Check out what the Saudi's are paying for their four B350ER ISR versions + package. Let alone an actual 2nd tier MPA ASW & ASuW. We are essentially looking for a Coastwatch platform - that's all.

Evidence submitted by Airbus Military to the UK Defence Committee when looking at the UK's Future Maritime Surveillance noted that an Airbus C295 MPA is circa £50 million.

If the NZ dollar remains strong maybe a 5th P-8 is do-able and maybe 5 vanilla Coastwatchers based on the B350-ER.

Of course there is the gutted P-32K option. Where following the introduction of the P-8 the P-3's are gutted of their recent installed kit and then transplanted on a twin prop commercial airframe such as the Q300 in the MPS role. Which is a variation on one lefty policy analysts solution of not buying a new P-3 replacement and actually doing that to save money so we could spend it on all the starving little kiddies in South Auckland and plant carbon neutral hemp plants.

Trouble with your analysis is the NZG wants the 2nd Tier aircraft sooner rather than later, the Beech B350 is not a shoe in, the Q300 is an old aircraft, a commercial aircraft doesn't necessarily have the range we require, we have to look at fact apart from 1980 - 1992 (Fokker F27s and they were a 4th tier "MPA" mainly used as a nav & comms trainer) we have never operated 2 types of MPA at the same time, the world has changed and finally and most importantly, information is the most valuable asset and commodity on this planet. So now any MPA in NZDF service has to have an ability to collect, collate and transfer information is a necessity. Any aircraft that can't is about as useful as tits on a bull.

The RNZAF found out in the 1980s that their 5 P3Bs were struggling big time so they got approval to buy an ex RAAF P3 which was then converted to P3K status. We know that we are not going to get 6 x P8s, and even 5 is a push. We also know that NZDF will not acquire Triton because of cost. 4 x P8 and 4 or 6 x 3rd or 4th tier "MPA" is not going to cut the mustard either and will result in 4 shagged and munted P8s within 10 years because they'll be thrashed just like the Seasprites were and still are. So what's going to happen? Well people like yourself and others who have the contacts better start making it known to those contacts that if they don't want to waste money and look like idiots, then they'd better listen to the professionals in uniform who actually use the gear. This country has wasted billions in defence dollars because of idiots and self absorbed individuals who don't listen.

 

[Shanesworld]

Trouble with your analysis is the NZG wants the 2nd Tier aircraft sooner rather than later, the Beech B350 is not a shoe in, the Q300 is an old aircraft, a commercial aircraft doesn't necessarily have the range we require, we have to look at fact apart from 1980 - 1992 (Fokker F27s and they were a 4th tier "MPA" mainly used as a nav & comms trainer) we have never operated 2 types of MPA at the same time, the world has changed and finally and most importantly, information is the most valuable asset and commodity on this planet. So now any MPA in NZDF service has to have an ability to collect, collate and transfer information is a necessity. Any aircraft that can't is about as useful as tits on a bull.

The RNZAF found out in the 1980s that their 5 P3Bs were struggling big time so they got approval to buy an ex RAAF P3 which was then converted to P3K status. We know that we are not going to get 6 x P8s, and even 5 is a push. We also know that NZDF will not acquire Triton because of cost. 4 x P8 and 4 or 6 x 3rd or 4th tier "MPA" is not going to cut the mustard either and will result in 4 shagged and munted P8s within 10 years because they'll be thrashed just like the Seasprites were and still are. So what's going to happen? Well people like yourself and others who have the contacts better start making it known to those contacts that if they don't want to waste money and look like idiots, then they'd better listen to the professionals in uniform who actually use the gear. This country has wasted billions in defence dollars because of idiots and self abusers who don't listen. Maybe using a few pollies as targets on the .50 cal range at Waiouru might wake their ideas up.

I think the anti-armour range is used for some .50 cal shoots so opportunity for some variety in training there.

Are there pallatised systems that we could look at? Perhaps something that has utilises those secure wifi developments you mentioned elsewhere.

Or perhaps the S-3B viking option that the south koreans are looking at (dives back into trench, awaiting the well deserved roasting to follow).....

Its a rapidly changing world and we give the pollies alot of crap but they can't be that stupid to ignore whats going with the rising tensions between the major power blocks.

Between the aussie seasprites,penguin and the P-3K2 we are better prepared (circa 2015) than we were in 2012 though so a small blessing there I guess.

Any guesses as to who may take over from Coleman?

 

[MrConservative]

Trouble with your analysis is the NZG wants the 2nd Tier aircraft sooner rather than later, the Beech B350 is not a shoe in, the Q300 is an old aircraft, a commercial aircraft doesn't necessarily have the range we require, we have to look at fact apart from 1980 - 1992 (Fokker F27s and they were a 4th tier "MPA" mainly used as a nav & comms trainer) we have never operated 2 types of MPA at the same time, the world has changed and finally and most importantly, information is the most valuable asset and commodity on this planet. So now any MPA in NZDF service has to have an ability to collect, collate and transfer information is a necessity. Any aircraft that can't is about as useful as tits on a bull.

The RNZAF found out in the 1980s that their 5 P3Bs were struggling big time so they got approval to buy an ex RAAF P3 which was then converted to P3K status. We know that we are not going to get 6 x P8s, and even 5 is a push. We also know that NZDF will not acquire Triton because of cost. 4 x P8 and 4 or 6 x 3rd or 4th tier "MPA" is not going to cut the mustard either and will result in 4 shagged and munted P8s within 10 years because they'll be thrashed just like the Seasprites were and still are. So what's going to happen? Well people like yourself and others who have the contacts better start making it known to those contacts that if they don't want to waste money and look like idiots, then they'd better listen to the professionals in uniform who actually use the gear. This country has wasted billions in defence dollars because of idiots and self abusers who don't listen. Maybe using a few pollies as targets on the .50 cal range at Waiouru might wake their ideas up.

Careful there. Not all my analysis NG. My preference would include a Maritime UAV platform as the supplementor to a P-8 as we want long range persistent eyes and ears. That acts as a detection platform in its own right and also as an enabler of the 1 tier one capability ala BAMS as opposed to a strictly tier 2 platform regardless of it being MPA or MPS. However, there is a need quite separate to that with respect to the Coastwatch role originally raised under Phil Goffs watch, arguable semantics in about what tier it is.

 

[MrConservative]

Its a rapidly changing world and we give the pollies alot of crap but they can't be that stupid to ignore whats going with the rising tensions between the major power blocks.

Between the aussie seasprites,penguin and the P-3K2 we are better prepared (circa 2015) than we were in 2012 though so a small blessing there I guess.

Any guesses as to who may take over from Coleman?

Those with the need to know as it intersects with their portfolio are very well briefed contrary to popular opinion.

As for Coleman if he is to be replaced and move up to health. Don't know ... Guy, Adams or Bridges are capable of it.

If the opposition get in .... back to Goff or if the Greens do well you never know Delahunty may have an outside chance ....

 

[40 deg south]

I don't think we will be getting an MPA at the 2nd tier when a MPS platform will suffice.

The actual difference between a vanilla B350ER with basic search radar and comms suite versus a B350ER with Link 16 and all the toys ISR version is dramatic. Check out what the Saudi's are paying for their four B350ER ISR versions + package. Let alone an actual 2nd tier MPA ASW & ASuW. We are essentially looking for a Coastwatch platform - that's all.

We are all putting the cart in front of the horse, because we are picking platforms without enough information on the percentage of time allocated to different taskings.

For example, I'm unsure why a coastwatch-type fitout wouldn't be adequate for EEZ patrol and domestic SAR. If that freed up a much more expensive platform for longer-range work or military uses, it would seem a reasonable allocation of resources.

Missing man's boat found off Taranaki coast - National - NZ Herald News

I'm not sure four engines, a dozen crew and secure comms links are needed for this type of work,or for identifying fishing trawlers around the Chathams.

I hope/assume that RNZAF and MinDef can do detailed analysis of how much time is spent on different roles, and use that to build a case for an appropriate MPA buy.

 

[MrConservative]

We are all putting the cart in front of the horse, because we are picking platforms without enough information on the percentage of time allocated to different taskings.

For example, I'm unsure why a coastwatch-type fitout wouldn't be adequate for EEZ patrol and domestic SAR. If that freed up a much more expensive platform for longer-range work or military uses, it would seem a reasonable allocation of resources.

Missing man's boat found off Taranaki coast - National - NZ Herald News

I'm not sure four engines, a dozen crew and secure comms links are needed for this type of work,or for identifying fishing trawlers around the Chathams.

I hope/assume that RNZAF and MinDef can do detailed analysis of how much time is spent on different roles, and use that to build a case for an appropriate MPA buy.

That's right and the data from the last Maritime Review is 15 years old. Still the contact data since then does provide for helpful modelling and does build a scenario. Still not convinced a MPA (Maritime Patrol Attack) is required for Coastwatch role when MPS (Maritime Patrol Surveillance) is what the main customers want viz Customs, MFish and NZ Police when we do have the P-3 and hopefully its replacement.

 

[RegR]

We are all putting the cart in front of the horse, because we are picking platforms without enough information on the percentage of time allocated to different taskings.

For example, I'm unsure why a coastwatch-type fitout wouldn't be adequate for EEZ patrol and domestic SAR. If that freed up a much more expensive platform for longer-range work or military uses, it would seem a reasonable allocation of resources.

Missing man's boat found off Taranaki coast - National - NZ Herald News

I'm not sure four engines, a dozen crew and secure comms links are needed for this type of work,or for identifying fishing trawlers around the Chathams.

I hope/assume that RNZAF and MinDef can do detailed analysis of how much time is spent on different roles, and use that to build a case for an appropriate MPA buy.

Exactly, the DWP has even stated low end regional surveillance short range aircraft, its in black and white. We keep trying to upgrade the platforms to something govt is purposely trying to avoid by getting them in the first place, gucci super expensive technically advanced war machines that we are going to potter around in the back yard with.

The tiered system is all well and good but I think we are trying to keep the collective capabilities too close together, and its somewhere at the top end, which is not gonna happen on a shoestring budget. The P3/P8 does not even need to work with the B350/C295 regularly and especially not for 'military' type scenarios, why would they? Therefore their equipment requirements would be more tailored to their envisaged role.

They will be like the navy frigates, OPVs and IPVs as in each will be better suited to roles/tasks/areas than others, fitted out accordingly and used appropriately. They all have weapons, sensors, crew, range, presence etc but your not going to send an IPV to the gulf pirate hunting or use a frigate to check fishing quotas in the Hauraki, you could however it will be alittle disproportianate and not very cost effective. A frigate also does not usually 'work' in the same arena as an IPV, they all can interact and overlap but generally have their individual settings that together cover the full maritime spectrum.

I guess an army example would be NZLAV, armoured LOV and mitsubishi triton, I could go in all of them to Afghan, Timor or the Cook Islands but some are better suited than others, some are overkill and some are all you need although all are vastly different in cost, suitability, fit out and operation.

The short range MPA could be as basic as a bubble window, some binos and a door to throw medical supplies out of or as advanced as FLIR, long range optics and a ramp to launch an inflatable raft from and anything in between however I'm not sure its going to need missile hard points, full link integration and anti-submarine capability.

UAV has a purpose but definitely won't be triton type especially if it costs as much as a P8 itself. The US customs and homeland department has UAVs for patrolling its borders so something like this could be more appropriate and slot in amongst P3/P8 and B350/C295 fulfilling a role and freeing them up to concentrate on their specific tasks and vice versa. Small fleets of each in dedicated areas should be manageable, optimal and cost effective if organised and maintained properly.

I'd say we could get away with 4 P8s, 3 mariner UAVs and 4 C295s(pods, shared with transport) at a minimum and cover at least what we currently have and hopefully any future expanded roles (overland, maritime strike etc). More would always be better however realistically I'm surprised any and all of these options are on the table in the first place.

 

[RegR]

That's right and the data from the last Maritime Review is 15 years old. Still the contact data since then does provide for helpful modelling and does build a scenario. Still not convinced a MPA (Maritime Patrol Attack) is required for Coastwatch role when MPS (Maritime Patrol Surveillance) is what the main customers want viz Customs, MFish and NZ Police when we do have the P-3 and hopefully its replacement.

Hmm all this time I was referring to MPA as in maritime patrol aircraft, damn all these acronyms can't keep up, wonder what else I been mis-using........

 

[MrConservative]

Guys can we at least try to get the terminology right. MPS and MPA. The A is for attack the S is for Surveillance.

Edit: Reg - I understand - we get so used to using MPA in a number of discussion contexts. But I had to have it clarified.

Cheers MrC

 

[htbrst]

Aviation week have an article this week about the Challenger based Boeing MSA which is a basic walk through of what's available at the moment:

Boeing, Field Aviation Advance MSA Bizjet Concept

I would not be surprised - particularly if there was a change in government - if NZ ended up with the Boeing MSA rather than the P-8 as the politicians can claim "It has the same systems as the P-8" :roll2 while the A-4Kahu may have had had the same radar as the F-16A, it didn't exactly have the whole platform performance of the F-16.

It is interesting that they do note they plan to fit link-16 to the MSA, which would be a requirement for NZ I would think.

If the PAC 750XL was twin engined I would think it would already have been be fitted with some basic sensors and tasked with the lower-end of the scale.

 

[40 deg south]

Hmm all this time I was referring to MPA as in maritime patrol aircraft, damn all these acronyms can't keep up, wonder what else I been mis-using........

I'd better raise my hand as an offender too!

Mind you, the use of MPA for Maritime Patrol Aircraft seems fairly widespread.

MPA - Military and Government
This website has it listed as US Navy usage, and various aircraft websites use it in the same way.

saab patro; aircraft - Bing
Interestingly, SAAB have a slight variation on Mr C's usage, with Maritime Patrol Aircraft for their armed Saab 2000 variant, and Maritime Surveillance Aircraft for the unarmed Saab 340 version.

I'll have to attempt greater precision in future posts.

The down-side of a two-tier fleet is the added support expense of having to service two different sets of everything. Presumably this was a major factor in opting for a single type to cover all single-engine flying training.

The only way to minimise this is for the lower-tier surveillance aircraft to be the same platform as something else in service. This points towards it being the same type as the MEPT aircraft, or the same as a hypothetical 'light lifter' if such a capability is introduced. Or to use a platform in local civilian use, and piggy-back on someone else's logistics train (ATR72, Bombardier Q300).

 

[ngatimozart]

We are all putting the cart in front of the horse, because we are picking platforms without enough information on the percentage of time allocated to different taskings.

For example, I'm unsure why a coastwatch-type fitout wouldn't be adequate for EEZ patrol and domestic SAR. If that freed up a much more expensive platform for longer-range work or military uses, it would seem a reasonable allocation of resources.

Missing man's boat found off Taranaki coast - National - NZ Herald News

I'm not sure four engines, a dozen crew and secure comms links are needed for this type of work,or for identifying fishing trawlers around the Chathams.

I hope/assume that RNZAF and MinDef can do detailed analysis of how much time is spent on different roles, and use that to build a case for an appropriate MPA buy.

All such taskings have monies allocated. We are not talking 4 engines and a dozen crew. The C295MPA is twin engined and half the crew. My point is that in NZs case, being solely reliant upon 4 aircraft for all ASW and ASuW work is a weakness and having extra aircraft of 2nd tier capability expands the maritime air power force projection abilities because of having a greater number of assets of multi-tier structure reduces the work load on the tier 1 aircraft and remember that the P8 is more than just a MPA.

 

[RegR]

I'd better raise my hand as an offender too!

Mind you, the use of MPA for Maritime Patrol Aircraft seems fairly widespread.

MPA - Military and Government
This website has it listed as US Navy usage, and various aircraft websites use it in the same way.

saab patro; aircraft - Bing
Interestingly, SAAB have a slight variation on Mr C's usage, with Maritime Patrol Aircraft for their armed Saab 2000 variant, and Maritime Surveillance Aircraft for the unarmed Saab 340 version.

I'll have to attempt greater precision in future posts.

The down-side of a two-tier fleet is the added support expense of having to service two different sets of everything. Presumably this was a major factor in opting for a single type to cover all single-engine flying training.

The only way to minimise this is for the lower-tier surveillance aircraft to be the same platform as something else in service. This points towards it being the same type as the MEPT aircraft, or the same as a hypothetical 'light lifter' if such a capability is introduced. Or to use a platform in local civilian use, and piggy-back on someone else's logistics train (ATR72, Bombardier Q300).

Yes some confusion, get that on the big jobs I suppose, thanks for the clarification Mr C, TBH I'd never heard MPA and MPS in that context especially from a NZ perspective, ah well will look out for it now, MPA=P3/P8 and MPS=B350/C295, got it.

That was the original intention as per DWP, to combine with MEPT and light transport so that should also influence type selected and save costs by not having multiple fleets. In saying that B350 would be perfect for MEPT, C295 would excel in light transport and MPS would be at home in both dependant on level therefore the question is which way to go? costings, capability and operating are going to be more/less in either dependant on particular role, I would love to see a Mil spec platform however the cost benefits of a civi based one (for these roles especially) cannot be ignored as well. Interesting decisions ahead, hope the beans make the right long term choice and soon.