I guess it's all proportional Ngati, if some of the lesser work (which I assume in NZs case would be a great deal) is farmed out to other 'suitably' equipped assets then that frees up a lot of their time and more importantly makes better use of their main skillsets and dedicated equipment. What has a bigger slice of hours, ASW/ASuW? SAR? EEZ patrols? army support? coastwatch? etc etc. Like capability for like roles in order not to overkill/under perform a set tasking but still operate within budget, it's like the old saying don't bring a knife to a gunfight but also don't take a bull to a china shop.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Having watched the discussion the last few days over a possible RNZAF 2nd tier maritime patrol aircraft, I have a few comments to make.
The first is that I suspect the real limiting factor is going to be what Treasury/Gov't (as usual) is willing to spend.
The second is that while a B350ER with an observer kitted out with a pair of binocs is better than nothing... It still would not be all that much of an improvement.
To properly perform the maritime patrol functions, an aircraft needs to be kitted out for volume sea search. This means a downward-looking sea search radar, and preferably an EO turret system as well. The aircraft also needs to have a comm/datalink system to relay the findings so that decisions can be made. It does SFA good for a B350ER to find an NN nation's fishing vessel illegally operating in NZ's EEZ if the B350ER is not able to relay the discovery so that a NZ vessel can respond, and stay on station to maintain observation until relieved by another aircraft or a vessel.
NZ also has agreements with a number of Pacific island nations to service the maritime patrol aircraft needs using RNZAF aircraft. Specifically the Kiwi Orions have been used due to the long distances to get on-station. It would therefore IMO be better and wiser for NZ to get a decently larger 2nd tier aircraft so that they can provide for the maritime surveilance needs in and around NZ, and reach Pacific island states to meet their needs.
In terms of cost, the reconfigurable HC-144A Ocean Sentry in use by the USCG has a purchase cost of ~USD$50 mil. If the NZDF does not need the 2nd tier aircraft to be armed, then something like that could be a viable choice. Especially since the maritime patrol mission module/workstations can be removed with the space and weight used for airlift.
-Cheers
The first is that I suspect the real limiting factor is going to be what Treasury/Gov't (as usual) is willing to spend.
The second is that while a B350ER with an observer kitted out with a pair of binocs is better than nothing... It still would not be all that much of an improvement.
To properly perform the maritime patrol functions, an aircraft needs to be kitted out for volume sea search. This means a downward-looking sea search radar, and preferably an EO turret system as well. The aircraft also needs to have a comm/datalink system to relay the findings so that decisions can be made. It does SFA good for a B350ER to find an NN nation's fishing vessel illegally operating in NZ's EEZ if the B350ER is not able to relay the discovery so that a NZ vessel can respond, and stay on station to maintain observation until relieved by another aircraft or a vessel.
NZ also has agreements with a number of Pacific island nations to service the maritime patrol aircraft needs using RNZAF aircraft. Specifically the Kiwi Orions have been used due to the long distances to get on-station. It would therefore IMO be better and wiser for NZ to get a decently larger 2nd tier aircraft so that they can provide for the maritime surveilance needs in and around NZ, and reach Pacific island states to meet their needs.
In terms of cost, the reconfigurable HC-144A Ocean Sentry in use by the USCG has a purchase cost of ~USD$50 mil. If the NZDF does not need the 2nd tier aircraft to be armed, then something like that could be a viable choice. Especially since the maritime patrol mission module/workstations can be removed with the space and weight used for airlift.
-Cheers
I was given cause to have a look at the CN235 MPA earlier this evening and I am thinking that maybe it would be more practical than the C295 MPA. The HC144 Ocean Sentry is a variant of the CN235 MPA but it lacks the weapons hardpoints and I think those could be important. IIRC it can carry the Exocet missile and the Mk 46 & Mk 48 torpedoes. If the aircraft was bought and the same tactical system installed as used in the Orions then it could be viable. The Mk 46 is already in use with the RNZAF, we don't need the Exocet but the aircraft could be fitted to take the Maverick and maybe the Penguin. So that way we are utilising already in use systems and weapons so it's basically the aircraft plus the surface search radar etc. If by chance should the RNZAF purchase the C295M as a tactical airlifter then there is some commonality.
t68
Well-Known Member
I think all this talk I'm maritime patrol aircraft is bit like jumping the gun, with the air defence review is due next year and they should by now have some sort of incling of what type of aircraft will replace the the H model Hercules.
Now from an outsiders point of view looking in we see that the kiwis will be short of a quid when it comes to defence purchases, now depending on the route taken for the tactical airlift it may make more sence that a roll on/off system that can be compatible with a couple of different aircraft.
You may or may not have enough in the kitty for P8, but that does not mean you have to sacrafice all of its longe range ability. Another option is the Sea Hercules with C27J, from what I can gather a lot of your current systems used in the P3 fleet can carry over to the Sea Herc and if it's modules enough will go into the C27J. This combination gives you a majority of common componetes between both aircraft, but unfortunatly it remains to be seen if the Hercules will fulfil RNZAF needs.
Now from an outsiders point of view looking in we see that the kiwis will be short of a quid when it comes to defence purchases, now depending on the route taken for the tactical airlift it may make more sence that a roll on/off system that can be compatible with a couple of different aircraft.
You may or may not have enough in the kitty for P8, but that does not mean you have to sacrafice all of its longe range ability. Another option is the Sea Hercules with C27J, from what I can gather a lot of your current systems used in the P3 fleet can carry over to the Sea Herc and if it's modules enough will go into the C27J. This combination gives you a majority of common componetes between both aircraft, but unfortunatly it remains to be seen if the Hercules will fulfil RNZAF needs.
Not quite jumping the gun. Back in 2010 the NZG stated that it wanted an aircraft capability to patrol the EEZ. Then the Christchurch quakes happened. So what we are really discussing is that capability and how it could or should compliment and supplement the P3K2 capability. Mr C is adamant the the P8 will replace the P3K2 because the NZG has apparently stipulated that these are a national strategic asset. The Sea Herc is not yet operational and is a MPA not a MMA which the P8 is, and it is those MMA capabilities currently unique to the P8 that the NZG are wanting for the RNZAF. So they are very aware that they will have to stump up a significant quantity of treasure for the P8, therefore they should have started planning for said expenditure.
The NZG have come up with a new funding system that is supposed to give NZDF greater certainty in its long term financial planning etc., so I think it may be a multi year funding package. But it's not being announced until the Budget night in May. So l'm only guessing.
With regard to this new MPA capability, it is coincidence that it has surfaced at the same time as the Air Transport Capability Study. If it wasn't for the Canterbury quakes a decision may have already been made about the MPA. That study is due this year & will inform the 2015 DWP so this could be one of those quake silver linings that appear every now and again. It is MHO that it may be advantageous to look at both projects together for common synergies etc. We are looking at the big picture as well as smaller pictures at the same time and these pictures cover a long time period and a range of capability sets.
NG. I would hold back on running up telephone numbers defence allocations in an election year budget. And I think Bill English and Key know that and will not let the opposition play party politics. Because they will as they have little ammo to get polling traction. I actually hope they wait for 2015 for them to show us the money. The project timetables are still there, the money need only be waved around when it needs to be. Yes adamant on the P-8 and that it must be the future even though its price tag will cause many heart palpitations, pollies hearts included. Number 1 priority.
Well we'll have to wait until the budget to see what this new plan is. I see your point re numbers. I'd like to see it structured in a way that it cannot be turfed out by the anti NZDF parliamentary parties when they get their grubby mits on the Treasury Benches further down the track.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Ngati
I think we are in agreement on this. My point was the same - it doesn't take an Orion to do inshore SAR and fisheries patrol. Better to use a low-end or civilian-spec platform for these, saving your high-end Orions (or, touch wood, Poseidons) for more challenging missions.
My concern is that there will be pressure to militarise or otherwise gold-plate a second-tier platform until it gets to the point where it costs a significant percentage of the high-end platform but with far lower capability. I would suggest a basic search radar and optics turret are must-haves, but definitely no capability to carry weapons. We should aim for a low-end platform for low-end tasks, and be wary about capability/mission creep.
Otherwise there is a risk we will end up with a kitted-up second tier platform and no first tier.
Tod
I agree on the need for radar/optics, but am unconvinced by the need for a really long 'on-station' time. At 15 knots for a fishing trawler, if the low-end platform has to be replaced by another aircraft, or even nip ashore to refuel, it isn't going to take too long to re-locate the target.
As for the Pacific EEZ patrol, it's an important commitment for the government, but could continue to be performed by the higher-end platform. Mind you, last time I was in Aggie Grays Samoa, the RNZAF crew in the pool looked as if they would happy to be there for a full week with a smaller plane rather than three nights with an Orion.
I suppose what it comes down to is what is the minimum platform required to achieve the stated core capability and then how many physical examples do you need to be able to sustain the capability over the coming decades.
The P-8 appears to be the best (or only) platform option and FMS would have to be the best way to support a small fleet. The only question is how small that fleet can be before capability and sustainability is impacted to the point that you are wasting your time and money and would be better off reviewing your original requirement.
With the Australian C-17 acquisition (a good example for comparison due to numbers involved and FMS procurement) one of the reasons additional airframes were ordered over the original four (three plus an option taken up prior to signing) deemed necessary to provide the stated capability was the need to support block upgrades and deep level maintenance in the fleet. Delivery of the fifth and sixth airframes permitted the original aircraft to be cycled through maintenance and upgrade without disrupting the operational capability provided by the platform. Basically the difference between four and six airframes was the difference between an sustainable capability and an expensive under performing one.
Can NZ afford six P-8s upfront? Four is probably unsustainable in the long term could NZ afford a split procurement of four initially then another two after four or five years for delivery before the original frames need deep level maintenance?
As I understand it NZ needs the reach and capability of the P-8 and as such the acquisition and sustainment of this capability should have precedence over any other coast watch or surveillance capabilities being discussed. If the P-8 can't be afforded then NZ needs to review how best to fill the gap.
Either way any decision on other platforms should wait until the MPA is sorted then any gaps can be analysed and available funding assessed. To spend time and effort on second string capabilities before the major ones are sorted runs the risk of leaving yourselves unable to afford the critical stuff while having nice shiny new platforms that can't or don't do what you need them to do.
The P-8 appears to be the best (or only) platform option and FMS would have to be the best way to support a small fleet. The only question is how small that fleet can be before capability and sustainability is impacted to the point that you are wasting your time and money and would be better off reviewing your original requirement.
With the Australian C-17 acquisition (a good example for comparison due to numbers involved and FMS procurement) one of the reasons additional airframes were ordered over the original four (three plus an option taken up prior to signing) deemed necessary to provide the stated capability was the need to support block upgrades and deep level maintenance in the fleet. Delivery of the fifth and sixth airframes permitted the original aircraft to be cycled through maintenance and upgrade without disrupting the operational capability provided by the platform. Basically the difference between four and six airframes was the difference between an sustainable capability and an expensive under performing one.
Can NZ afford six P-8s upfront? Four is probably unsustainable in the long term could NZ afford a split procurement of four initially then another two after four or five years for delivery before the original frames need deep level maintenance?
As I understand it NZ needs the reach and capability of the P-8 and as such the acquisition and sustainment of this capability should have precedence over any other coast watch or surveillance capabilities being discussed. If the P-8 can't be afforded then NZ needs to review how best to fill the gap.
Either way any decision on other platforms should wait until the MPA is sorted then any gaps can be analysed and available funding assessed. To spend time and effort on second string capabilities before the major ones are sorted runs the risk of leaving yourselves unable to afford the critical stuff while having nice shiny new platforms that can't or don't do what you need them to do.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Running up telephone number allocations on anything just isn't English's style. Particularly in a year when the govt's credibility is staked on getting the budget back into surplus.
Still, there is this intriguing quote from the new CDF
Quote:
The reference to personnel could only mean improved pay/allowances. As to equipment and infrastructure, who knows? More redevelopment at Linton/Waiouru perhaps? LIke Mr C, I suspect we'll see some budget projections for expenditure in future years on the two navy vessels, but not much cash actually being spent up front. Fortunately, a double-hulled tanker and a dive/survey ship are about the least aggressive-sounding military items in existence.
I still think a formal project to assess the costs/benefits of moving the navy out of Devonport would be worthwhile. I suspect the answer would be 'no', but the question is worth asking.
Ngati
The current parliament can't bind the decisions of a future parliament - the sovereignty of Parliament is a pretty important part of the Westminster system. The surest way of stopping decisions being reversed is to sign a watertight contract to build/purchase something, and make the penalty provisions for backing out so onerous that cancelling would cost more than completing the deal. Not that a dedicated public servant would advocate this, of course!
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Excellent post.
The quoted bit above summarizes my concern about going for a higher-spec second-tier system.
Unfortunately, the current P3C's have just come out of a decade-long upgrade that has supposedly given them another decade of life.
P3 Systems Upgrade [Ministry of Defence NZ]
Both the MEPT aircraft and the aging Hercs need replacement before then. So NZ will almost certainly have to move on the lower-tier capability before sorting the top tier. Messy but probably unavoidable.
t68
Well-Known Member
Cheers for that mate that gave me a better insight on where things stand.thought it originated over the cost of P8 and was giving people the jitters in the money pit.
Agree the Sea Herc is only a concept at this stage last I heard that the UK were considering it as an interim capabilty, but there are unconfirmed rumours that they will now bite the bullet and order P8 shortly
Another option may be us the E2 airframe and option it to suit for the MPS role
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I understand, but disagree re: loiter time, for a few reasons.
First is that NZ has a sizable EEZ, and not all of it is adjacent to either of the main islands. A high loiter time would enable a 2nd tier aircraft to get on-station, and then actually perform some worthwhile patrolling.
The other is partially a matter of jurisprudence. I am aware of cases were Australian authorities prosecuted the crew of a trawler for illegal fishing, one trawler had to be kept within sight of the pursuing vessel until capture to maintain the chain of evidence. I do admit I am not certain if things would be similar under NZ law, but a vessel found fishing illegally in NZ waters could be detected by an aircraft, but would still require a RNZN vessel for capture/seizure, or if it occurred within range of a RNZAF helicopter. Depending on location and NZDF operations at the time, the range might easily be too great for a NH-90, and a RNZN frigate or OPV might easily be nearly a day away. If the suspect vessel needs to be kept under observation until a RNZN vessel can take custody, a high loiter time could help maintain such visual contact, and easy the burden if/when aircraft & crews need to be cycled through and rotated.
-Cheers
We have been down the track of modifying commercial kit and stuffing it up leaving us with an expensive mess and no capability. Remember HMNZS Charles Upham. Canterbury is not ideal and has some issues. We are a maritime nation with the worlds 5th largest EEZ and continental shelf area, it being larger than Europe. NZ Exclusive Economic Zone = 4,000,000 square kilometres and the NZ Exclusive Economic Zone = 4,000,000 square kilometres Map of the Continental Shelf Boundary | Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) - Toit Therefore it is not in our economic interest to do the monitoring on the cheap. The NZG has realised that cheap at the beginning usually turns out very expensive down the track. So they've decided to buy MOTS or COTS without any adventurous risky bespoke unique kit. However we need something that is going to last the distance; operate for 30 - 40 years in conditions that are not optimal. Something that can take the southern mid latitude conditions that put a lot of mechanical strain on an airframe and are at the same time corrosive. So it has to be something fully investigated and chosen carefully. That is one reason why I've pushed for a purpose built designed and built aircraft rather than a conversion of a civilian pax aircraft. On that note I have looked at the CN235 and think that would be ideal. I posted earlier about it.
Loiter time is very important as Tod explains.
As far as I am aware NZ law and Australian law would be similar and the chain of evidence is very important. For 40Ss info when a suspect vessel is sighted and a decision is made to board it, said vessel must be kept under visual observation until the boarding party give the all clear. This is because during any gaps in surveillance incriminating evidence could be ditched over the side and deep sixed. When I was in the navy and we did boardings we always had the RIB deploy on the far side of the suspect boat after we boarded it in case things were dropped over the side. It happens.
We've done the EEZ monitoring etc., until the present with the Orions but in days gone by other aircraft would be out there on navexs etc., show the flag and at the same time saying we are watching you. The Skyhawks used to do low level navexs at sea, the Andovers and other aircraft as well. Now not so many aircraft so not so many eyes. The Orions are now being tasked with ops that are well beyond the scope of MPA so they do have to be supplemented in the MPA role with something. If not, the EEZ monitoring and MPA role will slowly be eroded.
If we can acquire something like the CN235 and fit it out with the current Orion tactical system instead of FITS, then we can utilise the current weapons used on the Orion and maybe the Seasprite if we need to. Everything is then a known quantity and quality. Come Orion replacement time then we have spares for the tactical system and hardware on the CN235. My 1 cents worth.
Shanesworld
Well-Known Member
As a quick and hasty suggestion would Embraer's P-99 fill in as either a tier -1 (maybe not enough) or a tier 2 (maybe too much) in MPA/MPS role?
Failing that are their podded search radars and optical/FLIR turrets that are pylon mounted we could add and swap between a fleet of tier 2 civvy based aircraft?
What sort of engineering challenges are involved in doing so?
Failing that are their podded search radars and optical/FLIR turrets that are pylon mounted we could add and swap between a fleet of tier 2 civvy based aircraft?
What sort of engineering challenges are involved in doing so?
The Embrear is to expensive for what it offers and jets are more expensive to operate than turboprops. I don't think there are podded radars because of the technical issues but there are I/O turrets that are interchangeable between aircraft. Something like that would work on transport aircraft like the C295 or the C27J if you wanted a multi use aircraft and re-rolling which could work in the RNZAF IF enough airframes were purchased. It's the rule of threes and so you need to acquire aircraft in multiples of 3. It is dangerous to under acquire assets because you end up over using them much like the SH2(NZ) Seasprite saga. If you go down that track then you have to solve the radar issue - do you fit every aircraft with radar or do you fit when re-rolling? You would also also have to put weapons hardpoints on every aircraft's wings. There is a lot to consider and would have to weigh up the number of operational hours that would be budgeted for each role. As I said in my previous post converting a civvy aircraft for this role would not be the ideal option nor necessarily the most cost effective.
Ok how about NZ bites the bullet and orders a pair of current baseline P-8 now to supplement the current P-3 force. Buy them in conjunction with the RAAF order and arrange support of them with the RAAF and USN. It will cost a lot upfront but will increase overall capability while reducing costs down the road.
Buy a pair of P-8 now another pair in 5 years and another pair in 10 years. As the P-8 comes online start stripping gear out of some of the Orions to create a similar platform to Canada's now retired CP-140A Arcturus that was used for training and as a general (non ASW) MPA platform supporting the more capable Aurora.
Maybe doing it this way the RNZAF could slowly ramp up to a full force of P-8 and eventually Tritons as well, by just chipping away adding a couple of airframes to the fleet every few years. Buying FMS and joining the USNs spiral development program this slowly grown fleet could be affordable and sustainable.
Buy a pair of P-8 now another pair in 5 years and another pair in 10 years. As the P-8 comes online start stripping gear out of some of the Orions to create a similar platform to Canada's now retired CP-140A Arcturus that was used for training and as a general (non ASW) MPA platform supporting the more capable Aurora.
Maybe doing it this way the RNZAF could slowly ramp up to a full force of P-8 and eventually Tritons as well, by just chipping away adding a couple of airframes to the fleet every few years. Buying FMS and joining the USNs spiral development program this slowly grown fleet could be affordable and sustainable.
That's an interesting idea and definitely one worth much consideration. My concern would be the service life left in the Orions and the cost of operation of increasingly aged airframes. Having said that, most definitely worth much consideration.
t68
Well-Known Member
I believe it's 2018 before the RAAF get their mits on any kit, so around 2020 for NZ might work. I would imagine a sustainment program will eventually start up along the lines of the C17 program
http://www.boeing.com/advertising/support/_lifecycle/C17GM_III_Integrated_Sustain_Prgm_Prod_Crd.pdf
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Boeing, Field Aviation Advance MSA Bizjet Concept
Aviation Week article about Boeing's mini-Poseidon has good general info on the lower-end surveillance market,
Aviation Week article about Boeing's mini-Poseidon has good general info on the lower-end surveillance market,