Royal New Zealand Air Force

[40 deg south]

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...

Tod

Don't get me wrong - the longer the loiter time the better. But if we are looking at a lower-tier platform, we have to accept that it will not be able to stay in the air as long as a top-tier platform.

I admit I hadn't considered the 'chain of evidence' angle at all - food for thought. In this era of GPS's and instant image-gathering, I'm unsure if there would be a need to keep a suspect vessel under constant surveillance. But even if it wasn't necessary, a break in surveillance would give the vessel time to dump any illegal catch, or heave undersized nets overboard.

 

[Todjaeger]

Tod

Don't get me wrong - the longer the loiter time the better. But if we are looking at a lower-tier platform, we have to accept that it will not be able to stay in the air as long as a top-tier platform.

I admit I hadn't considered the 'chain of evidence' angle at all - food for thought. In this era of GPS's and instant image-gathering, I'm unsure if there would be a need to keep a suspect vessel under constant surveillance. But even if it wasn't necessary, a break in surveillance would give the vessel time to dump any illegal catch, or heave undersized nets overboard.

Keep in mind that a USCG HC-144 Ocean Sentry has a loiter time of up to ~9 hours, so a 'long time' is relative. A P-8 Poseidon is supposed to have a max loiter time of 15 - 18 hours (I keep forgetting which one, since the E-737 Wedgetail has the other...)

One of the other important considerations is the oft mentioned tyrany of distance protecting NZ. This also means that an aircraft needs to have decent range just to get on-station in some locations. An example of that would be the EEZ between South Island and the Antarctic, specifically the 200 mile limit south of the Campbell Island group, which themselves are ~400 miles south of South Island. That would put that area 900+ miles away from the nearest RNZAF base at Woodbourne. Even if arrangements could be made to refuel at Invercargill, that patrol sector would still be some 600+ miles away. And realistically, the areas which likely need more patrolling are those which are some distance away from inhabited areas, since those are the easiest to exploit.

-Cheers

 

[40 deg south]

ne of the other important considerations is the oft mentioned tyrany of distance protecting NZ. This also means that an aircraft needs to have decent range just to get on-station in some locations. An example of that would be the EEZ between South Island and the Antarctic, specifically the 200 mile limit south of the Campbell Island group, which themselves are ~400 miles south of South Island. That would put that area 900+ miles away from the nearest RNZAF base at Woodbourne. Even if arrangements could be made to refuel at Invercargill, that patrol sector would still be some 600+ miles away. And realistically, the areas which likely need more patrolling are those which are some distance away from inhabited areas, since those are the easiest to exploit.

-Cheers

A very valid point. But if NZ goes down the two-tier track for budget reasons, we will have to accept lower performance in the second tier. If that means that surveying the outer limits of the EEZ is done by the top tier, then so be it.

What we can't do is buy a budget solution, and expect top-of-the-line capability. Cause that just isn't going to happen.

 

[40 deg south]

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.

Ngati

I don't disagree. But on the other hand, the current Endeavour has given sterling service, and the various of-the-shelf utes used by the army in Solomons/East Timor have given great bang-for-buck. And the B200s have been fine for MEPT and VIP_ transport.

Some pure military solutions under-deliver - the Aussie Seasprite saga is a classic, and the NZ Army's armored LOVs are said to be very maintenance-heavy. So I don't view the military/civilian split as purely black and white.

Where NZ has gone wrong, in my view, is buying cheap civilian equipment pretending it will do the same job as full military kit. That is bound to fail. As long as we match the equipment to the task at hand, I have no problem with buying civilian-based platforms. Given the budget issues we face, that may be better than no platform at all!

 

[Cadredave]

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.

NG

I think we all need to look beyond MPA/MPS for the P3K2 it is no longer classified by NZDF in that manner anymore it is now classified as an ISR capability that is its main role in the NZDF that is what Govt requires thru NZDF from the EC down to the JMETL. Its secondary role is MPS just like it currently doing off Perth. The days of purely MPA/MPS duties for the P3 are long gone I'm afraid and this has come from Senior Management Team.

 

[Cadredave]

A very valid point. But if NZ goes down the two-tier track for budget reasons, we will have to accept lower performance in the second tier. If that means that surveying the outer limits of the EEZ is done by the top tier, then so be it.

What we can't do is buy a budget solution, and expect top-of-the-line capability. Cause that just isn't going to happen.

I think we all need to read the DWP in regards to ISR capability as the wording gives strong clues for NZDF to analysis in detail whether this comes to fruition in the next DWP only those crafting it will know? So lets digest the ISR requirement:

5.37 Non-defence maritime patrol requirements cannot currently be met by the NZDF Capabilities have been enhanced by the introduction of the Offshore and Inshore Patrol Vessels, but the lack of an effective wide-area surveillance network hinders efficiency, and the asset mix is unbalanced.

5.38 A satellite imagery capability will be introduced to provide sustained and longer-range Surveillance, and to ensure that maritime patrol assets are more effectively targeted on areas of interest.

5.39 The current upgrade of the six P-3 Orions will continue. The aircraft may then progressively be fitted with self-protection and anti-submarine sensors, improving their combat capability and enhancing the ability of New Zealand to contribute more robustly to global efforts. The P-3 Orions will be replaced with an equivalent level of capability, manned or unmanned, in about 2025. Studies closer to this date will determine the types of replacement platform.

5.40 A number of low-end regional surveillance tasks (for both defence and other agencies) could be performed more cost-effectively by using maritime patrol aircraft with short takeoff and landing and sufficient range. The introduction of this capability would increase our surveillance capacity in both the EEZ and the South Pacific.

5.41 To maximise its cost-effectiveness, this new aircraft would also be expected to perform a transport and multi-engine flying training and consolidation function, as currently provided by the B200 King Air. An indicative business case is being prepared, with the intention of acquiring this new capability as soon as practicable.

As I read this I personally see it pointing at the B350 or DHC Q200 MPS type aircraft and not the C295 my reasoning is based on the wording in these paragraphs starting with P.37 which leads into p.39 – p.41 other paragraphs before also stated with some transport and training capability, RNZAF will have to have a very good presentation to NZDF Senior Management Team (SMT) validating the C295 at the same time not sacrificing the Tier 1 replacement.

At the end regardless of capability it will come down purely on costings IMHO and a B350/DHC Q200 in a MPS configuration will still come out cheaper than a C295 with its RORO systems to acquire and support no matter how multi-functional it is. But we will know more when DWP 2015 comes out im sure.

Also its been good reading the debate to and fro between the various Mil/Civ aircraft I think we all missed paragraph 3.37 which will be the link between Tier 1 & 2 giving us the capability to send the right assert to investigate. Satellite capability is a new capability that wasn’t around with the P3 fleet first flew in RNZAF so I don’t see our possible P8 aircraft being thrashed like the P3 but the MPA/MPS being sent to specific areas of interest instead of currently scanning large areas of ocean looking for the proverbial needle in a hay stack.

MHO as seen from the ground.

 

[kiwipatriot]

I think we all need to read the DWP in regards to ISR capability as the wording gives strong clues for NZDF to analysis in detail whether this comes to fruition in the next DWP only those crafting it will know? So lets digest the ISR requirement:

5.37 Non-defence maritime patrol requirements cannot currently be met by the NZDF Capabilities have been enhanced by the introduction of the Offshore and Inshore Patrol Vessels, but the lack of an effective wide-area surveillance network hinders efficiency, and the asset mix is unbalanced.

5.38 A satellite imagery capability will be introduced to provide sustained and longer-range Surveillance, and to ensure that maritime patrol assets are more effectively targeted on areas of interest.

5.39 The current upgrade of the six P-3 Orions will continue. The aircraft may then progressively be fitted with self-protection and anti-submarine sensors, improving their combat capability and enhancing the ability of New Zealand to contribute more robustly to global efforts. The P-3 Orions will be replaced with an equivalent level of capability, manned or unmanned, in about 2025. Studies closer to this date will determine the types of replacement platform.

5.40 A number of low-end regional surveillance tasks (for both defence and other agencies) could be performed more cost-effectively by using maritime patrol aircraft with short takeoff and landing and sufficient range. The introduction of this capability would increase our surveillance capacity in both the EEZ and the South Pacific.

5.41 To maximise its cost-effectiveness, this new aircraft would also be expected to perform a transport and multi-engine flying training and consolidation function, as currently provided by the B200 King Air. An indicative business case is being prepared, with the intention of acquiring this new capability as soon as practicable.

As I read this I personally see it pointing at the B350 or DHC Q200 MPS type aircraft and not the C295 my reasoning is based on the wording in these paragraphs starting with P.37 which leads into p.39 – p.41 other paragraphs before also stated with some transport and training capability, RNZAF will have to have a very good presentation to NZDF Senior Management Team (SMT) validating the C295 at the same time not sacrificing the Tier 1 replacement.

At the end regardless of capability it will come down purely on costings IMHO and a B350/DHC Q200 in a MPS configuration will still come out cheaper than a C295 with its RORO systems to acquire and support no matter how multi-functional it is. But we will know more when DWP 2015 comes out im sure.

Also its been good reading the debate to and fro between the various Mil/Civ aircraft I think we all missed paragraph 3.37 which will be the link between Tier 1 & 2 giving us the capability to send the right assert to investigate. Satellite capability is a new capability that wasn’t around with the P3 fleet first flew in RNZAF so I don’t see our possible P8 aircraft being thrashed like the P3 but the MPA/MPS being sent to specific areas of interest instead of currently scanning large areas of ocean looking for the proverbial needle in a hay stack.

MHO as seen from the ground.

Kind of like the satellite capability the Austrailan Airforce are using to find that downed Malaysian Airline plane? Talk about your needle in a haystack...hwell

 

[Ocean1Curse]

Kind of like the satellite capability the Austrailan Airforce are using to find that downed Malaysian Airline plane? Talk about your needle in a haystack...hwell

The Aussies must have had a lot of people looking at photo's. I wonder if New Zealand could produce the same results with less people.

 

[ngatimozart]

Kind of like the satellite capability the Austrailan Airforce are using to find that downed Malaysian Airline plane? Talk about your needle in a haystack...hwell

The images used for the Aussie search came off a commercial satellite operated by DigitalGlobe. The resolution is not bad - you get the same resolution on Google Earth because Google Earth uses some imagery from this very same satellite. Military satellites however have capabilities that are usually kept very close, so not talked about.

The Aussies must have had a lot of people looking at photo's. I wonder if New Zealand could produce the same results with less people.

According to various news media there are around 3 million volunteers worldwide looking at satellite images put up on a website called tomnod. The Aussies will have their analysts going over stuff as will NZ and many other countries.

 

[Cadredave]

Kind of like the satellite capability the Austrailan Airforce are using to find that downed Malaysian Airline plane? Talk about your needle in a haystack...hwell

Actually nothing like that the two have very different capabilities, military satellites true capabilities are a very closed shop, if your not going to offer anything that advances the debate then don't post anything at all.

 

[MrConservative]

Kind of like the satellite capability the Austrailan Airforce are using to find that downed Malaysian Airline plane? Talk about your needle in a haystack...hwell

No it is not and bringing MH370 into this is rather tasteless.

Try to contribute by addressing the exposition of CD's post and not with irrelevancies.

 

[Todjaeger]

5.38 A satellite imagery capability will be introduced to provide sustained and longer-range Surveillance, and to ensure that maritime patrol assets are more effectively targeted on areas of interest.

Any idea or sense if this will be a dedicated surveillance milsat in geosync over NZ, or a constellation of satellites, with NZ buying capacity from Australia or the US? Or IMO even more likely a milsat which does a periodic passover of NZ?

As I read this I personally see it pointing at the B350 or DHC Q200 MPS type aircraft and not the C295 my reasoning is based on the wording in these paragraphs starting with P.37 which leads into p.39 – p.41 other paragraphs before also stated with some transport and training capability, RNZAF will have to have a very good presentation to NZDF Senior Management Team (SMT) validating the C295 at the same time not sacrificing the Tier 1 replacement.

At the end regardless of capability it will come down purely on costings IMHO and a B350/DHC Q200 in a MPS configuration will still come out cheaper than a C295 with its RORO systems to acquire and support no matter how multi-functional it is. But we will know more when DWP 2015 comes out im sure.

I am honestly not sure that a Bombardier Dash 8 configured as a maritime patrol aircraft would be cheaper. Field Aviation (company which did the modification work for Surveillance Australia's Q300 MPA's) has been having a problem getting Q200 and Q300 airframes now that Bombardier as stopped manufacture of those models. Q200 and Q300 airframes are available but not cheap. Another Canadian aircraft modification company, Provincial Aerospace in Newfoundland, supplied two Dash 8 Q300's in an MPA/MSA configuration to the UAE in 2012 for USD$291 mil. Looking further, a new Dash 8 Q400 in an air shuttle configuration goes for USD$61 mil. Given that the HC-144A Ocean Sentry version of the CN-235MPA goes for ~USD$50 mil. complete with the modular system pallets (MSP) to allow the aircraft to be reconfigured for airlift and maritime patrol/surveillance, then a milspec prop airlifter might be a better route.

Another possibility that Field Aviation is looking into is working Boeing to develop some low-end (vs. the P-8 Poseidon) business jet conversions for maritime patrol, specifically the Bombardier Challenger CL-604. At the significantly lower end of the spectrum would be the Guardian 400, a multi-role MSA (maritime surveillance aircraft) version of the re-launched DHC-6 Twin Otter formerly from DHC, but now built by Viking Air. That is expected to cost ~$14 mil. but the aircraft is unpressurized, so it much more limited in terms of altitude and being smaller has shoter 'legs'.

-Cheers

 

[Cadredave]

Tod
Milsat in partnership with a couple of countries was the last brief about 18 months ago programme is at the highest level security wise so no further info has been released from any briefings or HQ since then.

I am honestly not sure that a Bombardier Dash 8 configured as a maritime patrol aircraft would be cheaper. Field Aviation (company which did the modification work for Surveillance Australia's Q300 MPA's) has been having a problem getting Q200 and Q300 airframes now that Bombardier as stopped manufacture of those models. Q200 and Q300 airframes are available but not cheap. Another Canadian aircraft modification company, Provincial Aerospace in Newfoundland, supplied two Dash 8 Q300's in an MPA/MSA configuration to the UAE in 2012 for USD$291 mil. Looking further, a new Dash 8 Q400 in an air shuttle configuration goes for USD$61 mil. Given that the HC-144A Ocean Sentry version of the CN-235MPA goes for ~USD$50 mil. complete with the modular system pallets (MSP) to allow the aircraft to be reconfigured for airlift and maritime patrol/surveillance, then a milspec prop airlifter might be a better route.

Another possibility that Field Aviation is looking into is working Boeing to develop some low-end (vs. the P-8 Poseidon) business jet conversions for maritime patrol, specifically the Bombardier Challenger CL-604. At the significantly lower end of the spectrum would be the Guardian 400, a multi-role MSA (maritime surveillance aircraft) version of the re-launched DHC-6 Twin Otter formerly from DHC, but now built by Viking Air. That is expected to cost ~$14 mil. but the aircraft is unpressurized, so it much more limited in terms of altitude and being smaller has shoter 'legs'.

-Cheers

Yeah couldn't really find anything besides these two the one reason I included the DASH 8 was because its a known quantity with Air NZ and our current Govt loves PPP partnerships use of maintenance facilities spare parts etc.

 

[MrConservative]

Tod
Yeah couldn't really find anything besides these two the one reason I included the DASH 8 was because its a known quantity with Air NZ and our current Govt loves PPP partnerships use of maintenance facilities spare parts etc.

With the Hawkers Pacific footprint within the NZDF and the T-6C coming to increase that footprint, and the role of MEPT / MPS outlined in the DWP, the ability of the B350ER to transit via Tonga into the Pacific through to Raro and Niue, adequate loiter legs, low op costs, COTS and system kit that can do what we are after as a MPS platform then on the balance of probabilities it the B350 has its nose in front.

 

[Cadredave]

With the Hawkers Pacific footprint within the NZDF and the T-6C coming to increase that footprint, and the role of MEPT / MPS outlined in the DWP, the ability of the B350ER to transit via Tonga into the Pacific through to Raro and Niue, adequate loiter legs, low op costs, COTS and system kit that can do what we are after as a MPS platform then on the balance of probabilities it the B350 has its nose in front.

Correct Mr C it definitely has its nose in front out of all the current COTS in a NZ context these two aircraft are the only two that potentially can be pitted against one another based on the DWP and fit the bill at what Min Def & NZDF are looking at for a Tier 2 capability

CD

 

[RegR]

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

Agreed the 2nd tier (non P8 type) needs decent eyes and comms (not same level as P3/P8 but up there), just do not think it needs the weapon and targeting fit as it is just added cost for no real gain and lets be honest for the majority of our purposes, no real use. The purpose of tiers is not just to put the exact same capabilities into a cheaper mode of transport but to have a stepped down capability in suitably specific transport for stepped down suitably specific tasks, which in NZs case is many that currently takes up precious tier 1 hours as a full P3K suite is the our current maritime tier 1 and 2.

What makes the P8 so expensive is the level of sophistication and equipment carried and all its inherent abilities coupled with a long range capable airframe whereas for what the low range patrol aircraft is proposed to do all this extra expense is just wasted if we are not using it constantly at this higher end level. Although there are similarities hunting a submarine is vastly different to identifying a trawler and searching for a liferaft uses different skillsets to targeting a combatant, therefore to get optimum bang for our buck we need to responsibly and effectively spread our resources and cover our bases as, when and where needed.

In ET we replaced the Aussie M113s role with armoured Pinzgauer, not NZLAV, why? Threat level, mission requirements, suitability, cost, support, terrain etc etc a host of factors plus the fact that they (pinny) could do the job adequately, cost effectively and easily. Whilst Armoured pinny is not as advanced or capable as NZLAV it was best suited for that particular task and at the same time NZLAV was off doing a task in Afghan which it was better suited to, same difference with tier 1/2 maritime patrol.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Kind of like the satellite capability the Austrailan Airforce are using to find that downed Malaysian Airline plane? Talk about your needle in a haystack...hwell

??

Commercial satellite imagery = 5m resolution
MilSat imagery from advanced countries = <3m resolution

5m to 3m resolution and definition is chalk and cheese

and contrary to tom clancy views of the world, milsats run specified racetracks because of a need - so using commercial imagery means its an opportunity image as that part of the world has no ongoing interest, its not a normal thoroughfare, no air transport lanes etc.... so that means geo sats are the most likely.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The images used for the Aussie search came off a commercial satellite operated by DigitalGlobe. The resolution is not bad - you get the same resolution on Google Earth because Google Earth uses some imagery from this very same satellite. Military satellites however have capabilities that are usually kept very close, so not talked about.

According to various news media there are around 3 million volunteers worldwide looking at satellite images put up on a website called tomnod. The Aussies will have their analysts going over stuff as will NZ and many other countries.

/temp OT

the problem with no professional analysts is also the methodology and availability of what images they are using.

eg Fred Bloggs checking google earth imagery will have one frame
sammy the geo spook will be using all the frames in a timeslice to as to be able to look at patterns of behaviour, sizing cross references etc.... so Fred will look at a blob on one image and the next image available might be 2 hrs older. Sammy the spook could be looking at (eg) 20 frames per second - and each frame has to be analysed.

Unfort the world has come to think that forensics is like watching CSI, all magically done within 55mins...

hence why the quality of reporting is abysmal and the comprehension of ill informed punters fed by the drivel is equally as abysmal

add in twitter and facebook and various other SMG's and you discover that the world is basically populated by a majority of people who have no concept of critical thinking

/rant off

re NZDEG GEOInt, I would think that the Kiwis would be asking for and seeking slots and availability from DIGO off our satellite assets

 

[kiwipatriot]

No it is not and bringing MH370 into this is rather tasteless.

Try to contribute by addressing the exposition of CD's post and not with irrelevancies.

People here taking my statements out of context, once again. No, as SAR is one of the tasks the Orion is tasked for, I was merely stating the obvious, and that we need more of them, and a Satellite system like whats being used, or better. This presents a great opertunity for NZAF to show the continued need for better and more aircraft,and the professionalism of its crew,doing one of many tasks its made for with its allies. I hope the govt see's this too. And I travel commercial airlines enough times and have plenty of friends that do regular, so I don't think this tragedy is funny at all.

 

[MrConservative]

People here taking my statements out of context, once again. No, as SAR is one of the tasks the Orion is tasked for, I was merely stating the obvious, and that we need more of them, and a Satellite system like whats being used, or better. This presents a great opertunity for NZAF to show the continued need for better and more aircraft,and the professionalism of its crew,doing one of many tasks its made for with its allies. I hope the govt see's this too. And I travel commercial airlines enough times and have plenty of friends that do regular, so I don't think this tragedy is funny at all.

Your comment was flippant. It was a reply to a very senior and respected member of this forum Cadre Dave. Its context and content had very little to add to the discussion. Cadre Dave regarded it as pointless and replied so. There was no need to make what was an out of context remark referring to a current tragedy that is affecting a number of people - thus I regarded it as tasteless. If any forum Moderator judges a comment as inappropriate you heed it. Give context when you make the originating post. Not later as you have now done.