Royal New Zealand Air Force

[kiwi in exile]

I read recently that th US coast guard is going to inherit some c27s from the USAF for use as medium maratime patroll aircraft, and that thes will most likely recieve sensor upgrades suitable for the new role (sea search radar, FLIR/EO).
U.S. Coast Guard Inherits Air Force C-27J Spartans | Aviation International News

Given, as has been mentioned on this forum in the past, NZDF will possible in future acquire new medium transports and MPA, the C27 would possibly be a candidate for both roles, maybe with modular kit that can be swapped in out as required. Or is it more likely that we will go for a 'lite' medium MPA, like a king air sort of aircraft (cheaper to acquire, run, etc,)

 

[ngatimozart]

I read recently that th US coast guard is going to inherit some c27s from the USAF for use as medium maratime patroll aircraft, and that thes will most likely recieve sensor upgrades suitable for the new role (sea search radar, FLIR/EO).
U.S. Coast Guard Inherits Air Force C-27J Spartans | Aviation International News

Given, as has been mentioned on this forum in the past, NZDF will possible in future acquire new medium transports and MPA, the C27 would possibly be a candidate for both roles, maybe with modular kit that can be swapped in out as required. Or is it more likely that we will go for a 'lite' medium MPA, like a king air sort of aircraft (cheaper to acquire, run, etc,)

Short answer no. The C27J doesn't have a proven track record as an MPA or MSA yet. Given that the NZG has stated that the P3K2s will be replaced with like for like capability or similar, then a 'lite' MPA is not likely as a P3K2 replacement. However as a MPA / MSA capability for Tier 2 EEZ patrol as stated in the 2010 DWP then something along the lines of say a CN235 MPA fitted for but not with weapons maybe a good investment.

 

[ngatimozart]

Boeing is going to target its MSA Challenger at nations operating the P3. Boeing to target current P-3 operators for MSA sales - 4/8/2014 - Flight Global In NZs case this option IMHO is not viable because of capability costs; i.e., bang for buck - or this case no bang especially when there are cheaper to acquire and operate platforms around.

On the P8 front, current USN estimates for the 2015 financial year place the aircraft flyaway price including weapons at around US$271 million. This is at a reduced rate of production because of US budget cuts. Reduced P-8 buy to affect price, not fleet plan - 4/8/2014 - Flight Global

 

[kiwi in exile]

Short answer no. The C27J doesn't have a proven track record as an MPA or MSA yet. Given that the NZG has stated that the P3K2s will be replaced with like for like capability or similar, then a 'lite' MPA is not likely as a P3K2 replacement. However as a MPA / MSA capability for Tier 2 EEZ patrol as stated in the 2010 DWP then something along the lines of say a CN235 MPA fitted for but not with weapons maybe a good investment.

Thanks. I should have been clearer. I never met the C27 as a replacement for the P3s. More as a 2nd tier compliment option. Although it doesn't have a track record as a MPA/MSA, it is popular and capable as tactical transport. Potentially it looks like NZDF will be in the market for both 2nd tier tac transport and MPA/MSA in the nearish future, to compliment the P3 and Herc replacements. I was thinking of possibly killing two birds with one platform type. The CASA 235/295s are popular as transports/MPA/MSA as well and would obviously also be a contender. But I have read that C27 has advantages over the CASA planes as a transporter (load size, range, performance, Aus interapability) which might push us in that direction transport wise. I imagine it would be unlikely that we would go for c27s transports and CASA MPA/MSA. Of course we could go for either type as transport, and a third type as MPA/MSA (king air, or the Boeing MSA).

What sort of capability is the NZ Govt likely to want from it's 2nd tier MSA?
Will it mainly be EEZ patrol, SAR, or are the looking for something to deploy alongside the JATF on littoral ops?
And how well do the various contenders (CASA, C27, king air and Boeing MSA) fit this criteria?

 

[MrConservative]

Thanks. I should have been clearer. I never met the C27 as a replacement for the P3s. More as a 2nd tier compliment option. Although it doesn't have a track record as a MPA/MSA, it is popular and capable as tactical transport. Potentially it looks like NZDF will be in the market for both 2nd tier tac transport and MPA/MSA in the nearish future, to compliment the P3 and Herc replacements. I was thinking of possibly killing two birds with one platform type. The CASA 235/295s are popular as transports/MPA/MSA as well and would obviously also be a contender. But I have read that C27 has advantages over the CASA planes as a transporter (load size, range, performance, Aus interapability) which might push us in that direction transport wise. I imagine it would be unlikely that we would go for c27s transports and CASA MPA/MSA. Of course we could go for either type as transport, and a third type as MPA/MSA (king air, or the Boeing MSA).

What sort of capability is the NZ Govt likely to want from it's 2nd tier MSA?
Will it mainly be EEZ patrol, SAR, or are the looking for something to deploy alongside the JATF on littoral ops?
And how well do the various contenders (CASA, C27, king air and Boeing MSA) fit this criteria?

The attraction of a small MPS platform such as the KingAir 350ER for the NZDF is that it will also double as a MEPT and domestic VIP platform as well as being a proven performer in terms of capability for Borderwatch aircraft per SAR. fisheries and customs patrol. It also has a established support footprint within NZ via Hawker Pacific and very favourable operating costs plus the ability to be highly flexible in terms of the fit-out scaling of COTS mission modules. These factors put it ahead of larger and more expensive alternatives.

The P-8 capability is where the conceptual thinking is heading and still in the long term a maritime ISR centric UAV platform as a supplementary enabler to this thinking is likely to be considered preferable as MilSat capability will become more necessary, indeed more pronounced in the decades ahead.

NZ has essentially dual requirements or needs. One has the geopolitical rationale (teir 1 platform / system synergetic with allies and a capable high end contributor ) and what really is in effect Coastwatching which is effectively a teir 3 platform. This mix nullifies any requirement or neccessity for a tier 2 MPA.

The C-27J needs to be as you point out looked through the lense of what it is. - a light -medium tactical transport aircraft. As a platform it has to be then considered within our wider air mobility needs. With that in mind a mix of A400M and C-27J offers a more preferable solution with respect to the tasking dynamics per range / lift / tempo within the tactical to strategic context than other alternative fleet mixes.

It is for these reasons that hybridised platforms such as C-295s may not be the silver bullet solution that they seem at first glance. Though they can do the Coastwatch MPS and MEPT role the opportunity cost is less favourable than the B350-ER. In terms of being a tactical transport solution within the broader air mobility requirement that we require a C-295 does not give such a seemless tasking solution if coupled with the A400M.

Note that this tasking flexibility is required for our air mobility needs with respect to platform mix, but ironically not for our maritime patrol / ISR needs where tier1 and tier 3 capabilities are all that is required.

Cheers MrC

 

[RegR]

Isn't the C295 made by the same people as A400 therefore wouldn't they go better together as surely they would have at least some operating systems, support and tech in common. Should also make for a better bargaining deal coming from the same stable.

If we were to go C130J then the C27 would be the better mix as they have common engines and synergies as above.

At the moment I see no definite clear leader in this medium role between the two (actually 3, C235 as well) as they both have similar options and can both do MPS and transport at varying levels. At the end of the day I think it will all come down to costs, initially and over their lifetime, and then that will bring B350 knocking as well as it will definitely win on that mark albeit at the expense of some higher functions.

Interesting to see how much funds will (if any) be allocated as to which type path we take and more importantly how many and to what specification. Pointless if we cannot get sufficient numbers but equally pointless if the equipment is not up to the task(s), hope the beans make the right and best choice but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Todjaeger]

The attraction of a small MPS platform such as the KingAir 350ER for the NZDF is that it will also double as a MEPT and domestic VIP platform as well as being a proven performer in terms of capability for Borderwatch aircraft per SAR. fisheries and customs patrol. It also has a established support footprint within NZ via Hawker Pacific and very favourable operating costs plus the ability to be highly flexible in terms of the fit-out scaling of COTS mission modules. These factors put it ahead of larger and more expensive alternatives.

The P-8 capability is where the conceptual thinking is heading and still in the long term a maritime ISR centric UAV platform as a supplementary enabler to this thinking is likely to be considered preferable as MilSat capability will become more necessary, indeed more pronounced in the decades ahead.

NZ has essentially dual requirements or needs. One has the geopolitical rationale (teir 1 platform / system synergetic with allies and a capable high end contributor ) and what really is in effect Coastwatching which is effectively a teir 3 platform. This mix nullifies any requirement or neccessity for a tier 2 MPA.

I have two areas of concern about relying on the King Air 350ER as a second tier maritime patrol asset.

The first concern revolves around fitout, especially if the aircraft are expected to perform MEPT and especially VIP transport roles in addition to MPS. While a belly pod has been developed to hold sensors for a surveillance role, I have not been able to get information on what type of sensors can be fitted, or how effective they would be. At a minimum I feel a sea search radar, E/O turret system with recording capability, and long-ranged communications preferably with datalink.

All of those sensors are going to require an onboard workstation (and user) to interpret the data and determine which returns are potential contacts of interest, etc. Unless Hawker Beechcraft has developed a modular workstation fitout which can easily be swapped in and out in a comparatively small cabin, then those workstations and the various connections they require are going to negatively impact the aircraft in a VIP transport role. I also do not see how a King Air 350ER could utilize something like a modular pallet system (like the USCG HC-144A Ocean Sentry does) because the King Air has no rear loading ramp.

The second, though lesser issue is time on-station. Per info I have come across on the King Air 350ER, the mission expectation is to be able to fly out 100 n miles, be on station for 8 hours, then fly back 100 n miles and still have 45 minutes of reserve fuel. Or put another way, a King Air 350ER should be able to fly from California to Hawaii (~2,500 miles) with a full fuel load. Given the small size of the aircraft, I honestly have to wonder about the aircrew endurance, would they be able to operate effectively after spending so many hours in the aircraft?

I do understand the cost appeal, since a new King Air 350ER is ~USD$7 mil. in a transport configuration, and fitted with some sensors could be as little as USD$15 mil. I am just concerned that NZ might again spend too little money on a programme, and find itself not having a capability needed, or needing to spend more money (than would have been required initially) to get something which would actually deliver the required performance.

-Cheers

 

[RegR]

I have two areas of concern about relying on the King Air 350ER as a second tier maritime patrol asset.

The first concern revolves around fitout, especially if the aircraft are expected to perform MEPT and especially VIP transport roles in addition to MPS. While a belly pod has been developed to hold sensors for a surveillance role, I have not been able to get information on what type of sensors can be fitted, or how effective they would be. At a minimum I feel a sea search radar, E/O turret system with recording capability, and long-ranged communications preferably with datalink.

All of those sensors are going to require an onboard workstation (and user) to interpret the data and determine which returns are potential contacts of interest, etc. Unless Hawker Beechcraft has developed a modular workstation fitout which can easily be swapped in and out in a comparatively small cabin, then those workstations and the various connections they require are going to negatively impact the aircraft in a VIP transport role. I also do not see how a King Air 350ER could utilize something like a modular pallet system (like the USCG HC-144A Ocean Sentry does) because the King Air has no rear loading ramp.

The second, though lesser issue is time on-station. Per info I have come across on the King Air 350ER, the mission expectation is to be able to fly out 100 n miles, be on station for 8 hours, then fly back 100 n miles and still have 45 minutes of reserve fuel. Or put another way, a King Air 350ER should be able to fly from California to Hawaii (~2,500 miles) with a full fuel load. Given the small size of the aircraft, I honestly have to wonder about the aircrew endurance, would they be able to operate effectively after spending so many hours in the aircraft?

I do understand the cost appeal, since a new King Air 350ER is ~USD$7 mil. in a transport configuration, and fitted with some sensors could be as little as USD$15 mil. I am just concerned that NZ might again spend too little money on a programme, and find itself not having a capability needed, or needing to spend more money (than would have been required initially) to get something which would actually deliver the required performance.

-Cheers

Agreed Todj, the B350 in my eyes will be the poor cousin and whilst being able to cover all roles (MEPT especially well) will be limited in others and maybe not as cost effective as people think overall.

Ironically the C235/C295/C27 types would cover the other roles (MPS/transport/vip) well but MEPT could prove costly and depending on numbers inadequate unless they kept the current king air lease going as well to cover, again costs.

They all have their stronger areas but also have weak spots in others, guess the perfect Acft is a hard find. It just comes down to the level of funding govt is prepared to throw at the project as to which roles and therefore Acft win the sway.

 

[ADMk2]

The attraction of a small MPS platform such as the KingAir 350ER for the NZDF is that it will also double as a MEPT and domestic VIP platform as well as being a proven performer in terms of capability for Borderwatch aircraft per SAR. fisheries and customs patrol. It also has a established support footprint within NZ via Hawker Pacific and very favourable operating costs plus the ability to be highly flexible in terms of the fit-out scaling of COTS mission modules. These factors put it ahead of larger and more expensive alternatives.

Cheers MrC

The other benefit of King Air 350ER is the flexibility that airframe has to cover UAV like ISR missions, with a broad range of surveillance systems and even light strike capability integrated should that become a RNZAF requirement at any point.

The range, endurance, flexibility and cost of this capability appears perfect for the RNZAF on face-value.

https://www.beechcraft.com/special_missions/assets/documents/King_Air_350ER_litho_06.2011.pdf

 

[RegR]

The other benefit of King Air 350ER is the flexibility that airframe has to cover UAV like ISR missions, with a broad range of surveillance systems and even light strike capability integrated should that become a RNZAF requirement at any point.

The range, endurance, flexibility and cost of this capability appears perfect for the RNZAF on face-value.

https://www.beechcraft.com/special_missions/assets/documents/King_Air_350ER_litho_06.2011.pdf

What does a AC have to do with UAV? and all the other options can do ISR just as well if not better due to the extra space for future growth, longer range etc.

On flexibility how does B350 stack up in the transport role or even quick/easy changing of roles? Not sure I quite understand your reasoning is all I'm saying.

 

[ngatimozart]

What does a AC have to do with UAV? and all the other options can do ISR just as well if not better due to the extra space for future growth, longer range etc.

On flexibility how does B350 stack up in the transport role or even quick/easy changing of roles? Not sure I quite understand your reasoning is all I'm saying.

I don't think the B350 is the right selection and talk of maritime UAVs operating in conjunction with RNZAF P8s is very premature. Currently the only one is the BAMS - Triton and that system has a similar price tag to equivalent numbers of P8s. I think Mr C has got the wrong end of the MAD boom with his assessment of the C295MP and MPA. The C295MPA is not just a surveillance aircraft it also carries weapons such as torpedoes and missiles plus it has an ASW capability. We are not likely to buy 6 x P8 aircraft purely because of cost and 4 or even 5 aircraft will not be enough. Quantity has a quality of its own and when we are talking numbers such as these it is a very important quality.

We have to look at this through the lens of what is happening within the wider region and the submarine population is expanding as nations gird their loins to protect their interests. China is the main issue and they will expand their naval capacity be it peacefully or not. They have certain goals that they intend to achieve and they will expend national treasure and resources to secure what they believe is theirs, again peacefully or otherwise. Guess where our SLOC are?

 

[MrConservative]

I have two areas of concern about relying on the King Air 350ER as a second tier maritime patrol asset.

The first concern revolves around fitout, especially if the aircraft are expected to perform MEPT and especially VIP transport roles in addition to MPS. While a belly pod has been developed to hold sensors for a surveillance role, I have not been able to get information on what type of sensors can be fitted, or how effective they would be. At a minimum I feel a sea search radar, E/O turret system with recording capability, and long-ranged communications preferably with datalink.

All of those sensors are going to require an onboard workstation (and user) to interpret the data and determine which returns are potential contacts of interest, etc. Unless Hawker Beechcraft has developed a modular workstation fitout which can easily be swapped in and out in a comparatively small cabin, then those workstations and the various connections they require are going to negatively impact the aircraft in a VIP transport role. I also do not see how a King Air 350ER could utilize something like a modular pallet system (like the USCG HC-144A Ocean Sentry does) because the King Air has no rear loading ramp.

The second, though lesser issue is time on-station. Per info I have come across on the King Air 350ER, the mission expectation is to be able to fly out 100 n miles, be on station for 8 hours, then fly back 100 n miles and still have 45 minutes of reserve fuel. Or put another way, a King Air 350ER should be able to fly from California to Hawaii (~2,500 miles) with a full fuel load. Given the small size of the aircraft, I honestly have to wonder about the aircrew endurance, would they be able to operate effectively after spending so many hours in the aircraft?

I do understand the cost appeal, since a new King Air 350ER is ~USD$7 mil. in a transport configuration, and fitted with some sensors could be as little as USD$15 mil. I am just concerned that NZ might again spend too little money on a programme, and find itself not having a capability needed, or needing to spend more money (than would have been required initially) to get something which would actually deliver the required performance.

-Cheers

Not all the aircraft assigned potentially to 42Sqd may possibly have the same fit-out. With the T-6 just 3 B350-ER plus sim (or alternative light twin t/p) will be required for the MEPT role plus modest VIP taskings. It is likely that these may just be vanilla utility versions. As AD rightly points out the scalable flexibility maybe more manifested in the additional airframes wired for the Coastwatch role.

The Coastwatch role to assist Customs, Police, MFish, Immigration and other MAOT roles is what they the NZ Govt are after. Similar tasking orientation to what the contracted Q300's do in Australia.

 

[MrConservative]

I don't think the B350 is the right selection and talk of maritime UAVs operating in conjunction with RNZAF P8s is very premature. Currently the only one is the BAMS - Triton and that system has a similar price tag to equivalent numbers of P8s. I think Mr C has got the wrong end of the MAD boom with his assessment of the C295MP and MPA. The C295MPA is not just a surveillance aircraft it also carries weapons such as torpedoes and missiles plus it has an ASW capability. We are not likely to buy 6 x P8 aircraft purely because of cost and 4 or even 5 aircraft will not be enough. Quantity has a quality of its own and when we are talking numbers such as these it is a very important quality.

We have to look at this through the lens of what is happening within the wider region and the submarine population is expanding as nations gird their loins to protect their interests. China is the main issue and they will expand their naval capacity be it peacefully or not. They have certain goals that they intend to achieve and they will expend national treasure and resources to secure what they believe is theirs, again peacefully or otherwise. Guess where our SLOC are?

I think you are completely missing the point NG.

1. There is definitive policy separation between NZ Govt goals between its envisaged localised maritime constabulary roles and its regionally orientated national security and FP roles with respect to the context and outputs relating to the maritime environment. The Government is sensibly understanding this and seeking to target its resources effectively. Concentrating on effective tier 1 capability and the recovery of a required tier 3 Coastwatch capability. Adding a tier 2 capability just dilutes the effort.

2. Our Closest neighbour does exactly what we are looking at doing. They also have a dualistic policy approach in securing their own huge territorial AOR/EEZ. A tier 1 capability currently being transformed into BAMS and a tier 3 Coastwatch capability (contracted out in their case). Thus arguing that we are wrong therefore they must be wrong too. Good luck running that line with the ADF and advocating for supplementing P-8 and Triton with CASA's and using CASA's to fly their Coastwatch missions.

3. Exploratory concept studies on UAV capability within the NZDF have been underway for sometime as part of F2035 as an enabler of a P-8 anchored BAMS solution. In 10-15 years out the purview of BAMS in a platform sense is very much likely to be wider than purely the P-8 and Triton. Contributory MilSat capability is of intense interest to the point that it is thankfully recognised within the NZDF leadership and Def Planners that to not engage its potential would leave us deaf dumb and blind thus undermining sovereign security and national interest. NZ is a very interested observer in how the P-8 and Triton plays out in ADF service. Likewise there is enthusiasm that NZ has engaged an interest due to projects significance to wider security umbrella. It is collectively in Australia's interests and our own and a much more prescriptive force multiplier. If NZ down the track marries into BAMS with the four P-8's and eventually a HALE platform of 3-4 examples then the resulting enhanced synergies not only helps ourselves but are complementary to the ADF.

4. Not just China. The Northern Pacific is seeing a maritime resurgence from our old pre 1990 foe out of Vladtown. The point is that any supplementation of a 2nd tier platform is as I said a dilution of effort and resources away from a tier 1 capability and frankly overkill for a constabulary orientated Coastwatch role.

5. If you do not think that B350-ER is the right selection fine. You are entitled to disagree, however what will be its alternative(s) in the NZDF outputs it is adequately capable of covering.

 

[Volkodav]

I apologise in advance but boy would the Gulfstream G550 or G650 look gorgeous in RNZAF markings.

Probably too pricy but it would have the range and volume for the job(s) being able to do anything the Kingair can do but with more style.

Buy G550/650 and P-8 with say 10 C-27J tactical airlifters with a variety mission modules and either a handful of C-17 or Grizzly's and you would be cruising.

Unaffordable? At least it would be sexy and the Gs could also do the VIP mission. Maybe a selling point to the political types, B737BJ (love the BJ acronym) and G650s in the VIP role making a better business case for the P-8 and special mission Gs.

 

[Volkodav]

I think you are completely missing the point NG.

1. There is definitive policy separation between NZ Govt goals between its envisaged localised maritime constabulary roles and its regionally orientated national security and FP roles with respect to the context and outputs relating to the maritime environment. The Government is sensibly understanding this and seeking to target its resources effectively. Concentrating on effective tier 1 capability and the recovery of a required tier 3 Coastwatch capability. Adding a tier 2 capability just dilutes the effort.

2. Our Closest neighbour does exactly what we are looking at doing. They also have a dualistic policy approach in securing their own huge territorial AOR/EEZ. A tier 1 capability currently being transformed into BAMS and a tier 3 Coastwatch capability (contracted out in their case). Thus arguing that we are wrong therefore they must be wrong too. Good luck running that line with the ADF and advocating for supplementing P-8 and Triton with CASA's and using CASA's to fly their Coastwatch missions.

3. Exploratory concept studies on UAV capability within the NZDF have been underway for sometime as part of F2035 as an enabler of a P-8 anchored BAMS solution. In 10-15 years out the purview of BAMS in a platform sense is very much likely to be wider than purely the P-8 and Triton. Contributory MilSat capability is of intense interest to the point that it is thankfully recognised within the NZDF leadership and Def Planners that to not engage its potential would leave us deaf dumb and blind thus undermining sovereign security and national interest. NZ is a very interested observer in how the P-8 and Triton plays out in ADF service. Likewise there is enthusiasm that NZ has engaged an interest due to projects significance to wider security umbrella. It is collectively in Australia's interests and our own and a much more prescriptive force multiplier. If NZ down the track marries into BAMS with the four P-8's and eventually a HALE platform of 3-4 examples then the resulting enhanced synergies not only helps ourselves but are complementary to the ADF.

4. Not just China. The Northern Pacific is seeing a maritime resurgence from our old pre 1990 foe out of Vladtown. The point is that any supplementation of a 2nd tier platform is as I said a dilution of effort and resources away from a tier 1 capability and frankly overkill for a constabulary orientated Coastwatch role.

5. If you do not think that B350-ER is the right selection fine. You are entitled to disagree, however what will be its alternative(s) in the NZDF outputs it is adequately capable of covering.

Well the ADF is often wrong, or more to the point the government is. Border protection is a dogs breakfast of overlapping under performing capabilities that cost more than they should due to under investment and penny pinching on capability.

That said a tricked up DASH 8 and a Dornier 328 (SAR) are a long way from a Kingair 350ER.

Fingers cross the RAN or RAAF get Mariner or similar for MALE missions in support of BP and also that manned surveillance gets brought back in house with a more capable platform. Extra C-27Js would not be a bad thing, especially if they were also kitted with modular firefighting gear. Then again G650 would look good with roo roundels too.

 

[RegR]

I think you are completely missing the point NG.

1. There is definitive policy separation between NZ Govt goals between its envisaged localised maritime constabulary roles and its regionally orientated national security and FP roles with respect to the context and outputs relating to the maritime environment. The Government is sensibly understanding this and seeking to target its resources effectively. Concentrating on effective tier 1 capability and the recovery of a required tier 3 Coastwatch capability. Adding a tier 2 capability just dilutes the effort.

2. Our Closest neighbour does exactly what we are looking at doing. They also have a dualistic policy approach in securing their own huge territorial AOR/EEZ. A tier 1 capability currently being transformed into BAMS and a tier 3 Coastwatch capability (contracted out in their case). Thus arguing that we are wrong therefore they must be wrong too. Good luck running that line with the ADF and advocating for supplementing P-8 and Triton with CASA's and using CASA's to fly their Coastwatch missions.

3. Exploratory concept studies on UAV capability within the NZDF have been underway for sometime as part of F2035 as an enabler of a P-8 anchored BAMS solution. In 10-15 years out the purview of BAMS in a platform sense is very much likely to be wider than purely the P-8 and Triton. Contributory MilSat capability is of intense interest to the point that it is thankfully recognised within the NZDF leadership and Def Planners that to not engage its potential would leave us deaf dumb and blind thus undermining sovereign security and national interest. NZ is a very interested observer in how the P-8 and Triton plays out in ADF service. Likewise there is enthusiasm that NZ has engaged an interest due to projects significance to wider security umbrella. It is collectively in Australia's interests and our own and a much more prescriptive force multiplier. If NZ down the track marries into BAMS with the four P-8's and eventually a HALE platform of 3-4 examples then the resulting enhanced synergies not only helps ourselves but are complementary to the ADF.

4. Not just China. The Northern Pacific is seeing a maritime resurgence from our old pre 1990 foe out of Vladtown. The point is that any supplementation of a 2nd tier platform is as I said a dilution of effort and resources away from a tier 1 capability and frankly overkill for a constabulary orientated Coastwatch role.

5. If you do not think that B350-ER is the right selection fine. You are entitled to disagree, however what will be its alternative(s) in the NZDF outputs it is adequately capable of covering.

Agree with you on the level of tier separation and accordingly final fitout however still do not believe B350 to nesscessarily be the AC to do it in when a C235/295 type would do it not only better but cover all roles adequately rather than slightly expanding on what we essentially already have (minus any MPS sensors).

A B350 is just a slightly bigger king air with marginally better range and the only major plus would be in the level of kit applied in the MPS role specifically (therefore can be fitted in a casa type). MEPT will be the same however the other identified role of transport will be? an extra 2 seats maybe? still no help in the cargo department of which future heavy lift will be stretched (as again I doubt we will get 1 for 1 C130/757 replacement) and VIP @ NZ is not that big of a deal in RNZAF service.

Although more expensive the larger/purpose built type actually afford us more flex with cabin, ramp and range as rather then just the MEPT, MPS and VIP of a king air as we can also safely cover off true medium transport (as in freight). It would be like getting a B757 type at the expense of a A400 type, they are both transports and each better in certain areas however one ticks same/more roles over a wider spectrum.

I also don't think we will follow Aus down the triton path with UAV and like volk think we should downsize that side to the less costly mariner type and slot its capabilities accordingly within the P8/MPS umbrella, maybe tier 2+/-? That way they each have their clearly defined roles/tasks/levels within the NZDF ISR bubble. I think your numbers will be spot on though (4 P8, 3-4 UAV) along with 4-6 MPS/transport mission modules provides capable minimums within achievable funding (hopefully).

The main advantage of B350 in my eyes is price but at the expense of true added capability and sadly we all know the beans can smell savings even before they are known regardless of any output gained. Minimum numbers, funding and equipping = maximum workload, risk and effort.

 

[MrConservative]

Whether the Triton comes into play or not or another alternative is moot. The point is the interest within defence is there in the longer term due to the persistance that an unmanned ISR offers for our wider territorial AOR. Systemically they are (or will be) an extension to the P-8 telling it where to vector when the situation requires a response that utilises the P-8's capabilities. Thus less P-8 airframes are required and with the extended loiter of the UAV a broader area can be covered than otherwise with a generic fixed wing manned aircraft at operatively cheaper costs.

Some here are completely under estimating the abilities of the B350-ER with RDR-1700B as a fit for purpose platform to conduct the maritime mission profiles that the NZ Govt requires. Govt policy requirements come from an evaluated need and NOT because gee whiz that piece of kit looks great and can do this and that type of thinking.

Seriously the NZ Govt is NOT going to run off and buy certain aircraft on a whim without the fundamental polcy requirements being able to be efficently met, a construct which is focused on priorities not nice to have.

A B350-ER based Coastwatch platform with RDR-1700B with EO/IR (FLIR) of the same numbers plus Sim with logistics support, the requirement for far less additional ground infrastructure meets that tier 3 coastwatch policy need plus MEPT, also of which has been outlined for a number of years even prior to the DWP. Any further desired capability is amply provided in having a tier 1 capability that can be directed as the need is required.

Take for example the CN-235-300M Persuader sought in a fleet of six plus Sim would be around the US$250m mark by the time ground support infrastructure, and full logistics and spares support kicks in. Yeah that would be a sensible platform to also do MEPT which will be half of the annual operarting hours of the platform. A B350ER solution of 3 standard fit-out airframes for MEPT plus VIP - and realistically that is all we sic RNZAF needs and will seek - plus additional airframes 3 maybe 4 in a higher state of appropriate ISR fit-out. Factor in the dramatic difference in total purchase and operating costs between the CASA to the B350ER and pragmatism triumphs. The considerable amount of money saved can be directed into another fiscally impacted defence project viz air mobility, additional rotary or into tier 1 ISR.

As for for the argument proferred that a hybridised platform can do tactical transport , well yes it can, but again I redirect back to what is the most appropriate Air Mobility solution across the tasking spectrum. A tactical transport solution that has synergy with what the ADF has acquired makes more sense in the NZDF context. I might add at the lower end of the air mobility spectrum the B350CER version the ER with rear cargo door is well regarded as a light utility transport.

 

[RegR]

Whether the Triton comes into play or not or another alternative is moot. The point is the interest within defence is there in the longer term due to the persistance that an unmanned ISR offers for our wider territorial AOR. Systemically they are (or will be) an extension to the P-8 telling it where to vector when the situation requires a response that utilises the P-8's capabilities. Thus less P-8 airframes are required and with the extended loiter of the UAV a broader area can be covered than otherwise with a generic fixed wing manned aircraft at operatively cheaper costs.

Some here are completely under estimating the abilities of the B350-ER with RDR-1700B as a fit for purpose platform to conduct the maritime mission profiles that the NZ Govt requires. Govt policy requirements come from an evaluated need and NOT because gee whiz that piece of kit looks great and can do this and that type of thinking.

Seriously the NZ Govt is NOT going to run off and buy certain aircraft on a whim without the fundamental polcy requirements being able to be efficently met, a construct which is focused on priorities not nice to have.

A B350-ER based Coastwatch platform with RDR-1700B with EO/IR (FLIR) of the same numbers plus Sim with logistics support, the requirement for far less additional ground infrastructure meets that tier 3 coastwatch policy need plus MEPT, also of which has been outlined for a number of years even prior to the DWP. Any further desired capability is amply provided in having a tier 1 capability that can be directed as the need is required.

Take for example the CN-235-300M Persuader sought in a fleet of six plus Sim would be around the US$250m mark by the time ground support infrastructure, and full logistics and spares support kicks in. Yeah that would be a sensible platform to also do MEPT which will be half of the annual operarting hours of the platform. A B350ER solution of 3 standard fit-out airframes for MEPT plus VIP - and realistically that is all we sic RNZAF needs and will seek - plus additional airframes 3 maybe 4 in a higher state of appropriate ISR fit-out. Factor in the dramatic difference in total purchase and operating costs between the CASA to the B350ER and pragmatism triumphs. The considerable amount of money saved can be directed into another fiscally impacted defence project viz air mobility, additional rotary or into tier 1 ISR.

As for for the argument proferred that a hybridised platform can do tactical transport , well yes it can, but again I redirect back to what is the most appropriate Air Mobility solution across the tasking spectrum. A tactical transport solution that has synergy with what the ADF has acquired makes more sense in the NZDF context. I might add at the lower end of the air mobility spectrum the B350CER version the ER with rear cargo door is well regarded as a light utility transport.

Ok so apparently NZ is getting the B350, I hadn't heard yet, makes me wonder why casa even made the trip down here in the first place if it's already sorted?
People on here are not arguing the lack/type of sensors as you can put them into almost any airframe of adequate size with varying levels of success but transport (and VIP is not considered 'transport' in this respect) cannot be covered by a B350. We already have king airs and they cannot do it (6 pax and their baggage is impressive however...) it's just plain shapes and sizes we all learnt in school. If we only get 4 A400s or even 5 C130Js all the VIPs in NZ are not going to relieve the burden we will have and are currently having. We need to stop looking at the soloution from just a patrol side of the equation and take the entire RNZAF/NZDF into consideration.

With capability comes cost, sad fact of life, but to limit ourselves (again) to inadequate gear is again failing the NZDF. MEPT can also be conducted in AC other than king airs as funnily enough all you need is more than one engine, king air is a cost effective platform but I feel at the loss of a pretty fundamental capability not worth the perceived savings. Air transport in NZs sphere is equally as important if not more than ISR in my opinion and if we are going to just put a sensor suite into an upgraded king air then it does not even have to be a military function as in AUs case and we could just stay status quo. Again not everything Aus does or has suits our needs and we need to cut away from their influence and draw our own conclusions, also they can afford Q300s and C27s covering both roles separately, we don't have that luxury.

Just my view anyway, B350 will be an improvement in some respects but also same same in others therefore better to seize the oppourtunity or live with the results for the next 20-50 years.

 

[MrConservative]

Ok so apparently NZ is getting the B350, I hadn't heard yet, makes me wonder why casa even made the trip down here in the first place if it's already sorted?
People on here are not arguing the lack/type of sensors as you can put them into almost any airframe of adequate size with varying levels of success but transport (and VIP is not considered 'transport' in this respect) cannot be covered by a B350. We already have king airs and they cannot do it (6 pax and their baggage is impressive however...) it's just plain shapes and sizes we all learnt in school. If we only get 4 A400s or even 5 C130Js all the VIPs in NZ are not going to relieve the burden we will have and are currently having. We need to stop looking at the soloution from just a patrol side of the equation and take the entire RNZAF/NZDF into consideration.

With capability comes cost, sad fact of life, but to limit ourselves (again) to inadequate gear is again failing the NZDF. MEPT can also be conducted in AC other than king airs as funnily enough all you need is more than one engine, king air is a cost effective platform but I feel at the loss of a pretty fundamental capability not worth the perceived savings. Air transport in NZs sphere is equally as important if not more than ISR in my opinion and if we are going to just put a sensor suite into an upgraded king air then it does not even have to be a military function as in AUs case and we could just stay status quo. Again not everything Aus does or has suits our needs and we need to cut away from their influence and draw our own conclusions, also they can afford Q300s and C27s covering both roles separately, we don't have that luxury.

Just my view anyway, B350 will be an improvement in some respects but also same same in others therefore better to seize the oppourtunity or live with the results for the next 20-50 years.

No Reg. I did not say that the B350ER has been or is going to be selected - however it is obvious that it is of the reasons of meeting the required policy goals, bush telegraph, on-going fiscal constraints, uncomplicated COTS solution, that will always be a factor that it is a clear favourite. It is more than adequate for the prescribed tasks EEZ monitoring, constabulary and its primary MEPT that the government requires. The relative light transport capability / VIP is not a significant driver. It is just a further benefit. You are right we do not have the luxury of splitting it up into its subsets.

Air Mobility is indeed a significant issue. With MEPT conducted on a small light twin that also has sufficient patrol characteristics viz B350 et al - that issue can be signed off put to bed and the required airlift capability confronted purely on its needs and solutions sought. The starting point is the deletion of the C-130H and B757. Seven airframes to be replaced with what and that what has to cover a spectrum of light tactical through to strategic lift.

Incidently there is not much enthusiasm within Defence at present to outsource a Coastwatch role to contractors as what OZ does as an in-house RNZAF directed solution that does MEPT as the primary requirement with patrol capability as a significant secondary role and VIP / light transport as a minor role crunches the numbers better. That said there will always be some in Treasury who think the whole scope would be better completely outsourced ....God forbid.

 

[ADMk2]

What does a AC have to do with UAV? and all the other options can do ISR just as well if not better due to the extra space for future growth, longer range etc.

On flexibility how does B350 stack up in the transport role or even quick/easy changing of roles? Not sure I quite understand your reasoning is all I'm saying.

It doesn't have anything to do with UAV's other than the fact that they are used for similar missions / tasking by others... Many use the King Air 350ER for their similar capabilities in the MALE UAV performance class, but are cheaper, have better typical cruise speeds and have on-board mission systems specialists, unlike UAV's...

Project Liberty Birds Take Off - Special Mission MC-12W In Iraq

King Air 350ER's are used by many for the full gamut of ISR missions and to understand the variety of sensors and capabilities (including on-board mission system consoles) one merely has to peruse Beechcraft's website for a minute or two. Suffice to say, maritime and land surveillance radars (with SAR, ISAR and GMTI capability), EO/IR ball turrets and Commsint, Elint and AEA capabilities are all integrated onto this platform already and in-service with other nations.

As a light tactical transport they fair very well, but there is no getting around the fact the King Air 350ER is a small aircraft. It's no C-295 or C-27J and doesn't pretend to be, however it is substantially cheaper to acquire and run than either of those types.

RAAF's King Air 350's have been used for transport tasks on many occasions and do a fine job, within the scope of their capability.