Royal New Zealand Air Force

[ngatimozart]

Lets reiterate the basic NZ political animal basis and this is based on history right back to the 1920s. NZ pollies do not like coughing up money for expensive defence related items full stop unless they have no choice or see a specific need that meets their criteria. At present from what some of us understand the P8 is perceived by the current NZG as a strategic asset so that has it in it's favour. However the BAMS or any similar capability is not. So please understand that before you start suggesting such items.

The second point you must understand is that there are capabilities of the P8 that are not in the public domain and probably will not ever be and it is some of those that make it attractive to the NZG. The third point is that the NZG is not aware of all those capabilities because it has not been briefed in because it is not part of the program, although as a potential client I would not be surprised if it has been given information that is not in the public domain.

I would strongly suggest that some people read this: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/air-power-101-new-members-12457/ and with regard to aircraft pricing this: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/aircraft-prices-952/

 

[ngatimozart]

According to Defence Industry Daily all of the RNZAF NH90TTHs have been delivered and bought up to final configuration standard. They are citing Shepherd Rotohub as the source. New Zealand’s New NH90 & A109E Helicopter Fleets I do not know how accurate the information is regarding the delivery of the 8th and final aircraft.

Also from CAF Twitter Account. Two T6Cs left Beechcraft today and will arrive in Whenuapai on 28th August.

 

[Reaver]

Considering the final NH90 FC+ configuration has not even been certified let alone installed to the fleet they must be refering to the IC - FC changes.

The T-6s will be arriving in Ohakea from Whenuapai on the 22nd Aug

 

[Zero Alpha]

The second point you must understand is that there are capabilities of the P8 that are not in the public domain and probably will not ever be and it is some of those that make it attractive to the NZG. The third point is that the NZG is not aware of all those capabilities because it has not been briefed in because it is not part of the program

What you're saying here is that the P-8 has some capabilities the government isn't aware of, and those capabilities make it attractive to the government. Not sure I see the logic behind that one.

The platform doesn't really matter - if government requires a certain capability set, it can probably be fitted to most platforms.

The politics make a P-8 deal almost impossible. I just can't see any government in NZ signing up to a a fleet of aircraft that cost half a billion dollars each. A converted cargo aircraft is a much easier sales pitch. And much easier to add capability to over time, when it is political acceptable. That's the beauty of the conversion path. Even a government that relies on the Greens for confidence and supply would be likely to support something like a baseline SeaHerc (essentially a coastguard variant). Fast forward the political clock a term or two and a more right wing government can then add things like subsurface sensors.

Look what happened to Project Sirius. Killed by Labour. Defence re-grouped, split the upgrade package out into smaller pieces, and got the non-controversial parts accepted by government.

 

[Todjaeger]

The politics make a P-8 deal almost impossible. I just can't see any government in NZ signing up to a a fleet of aircraft that cost half a billion dollars each. A converted cargo aircraft is a much easier sales pitch. And much easier to add capability to over time, when it is political acceptable. That's the beauty of the conversion path. Even a government that relies on the Greens for confidence and supply would be likely to support something like a baseline SeaHerc (essentially a coastguard variant). Fast forward the political clock a term or two and a more right wing government can then add things like subsurface sensors.

But they do not. The "flyaway" costs for a P-8 is USD$179.81 mil (FY2014) per aircraft.

The Australian purchase of 8+4 options of the P-8 is worth ~AUD$4 bil. which includes a support package, with the value of the support package likely worth ~$200 mil. per aircraft or more.

 

[Zero Alpha]

But they do not. The "flyaway" costs for a P-8 is USD$179.81 mil (FY2014) per aircraft.

The Australian purchase of 8+4 options of the P-8 is worth ~AUD$4 bil. which includes a support package, with the value of the support package likely worth ~$200 mil. per aircraft or more.

The planning figure provided to Cabinet was 2 - 3 billion (2025 dollars). The public will focus on the total cost, not the airframe one.

Treasury have also expressed the view that replacing both the frigates and the Orions in the same period is unaffordable.

 

[ngatimozart]

The planning figure provided to Cabinet was 2 - 3 billion (2025 dollars). The public will focus on the total cost, not the airframe one.

Treasury have also expressed the view that replacing both the frigates and the Orions in the same period is unaffordable.

Treasury always say that and treasury are only looking out for their own portfolio and interest. It is because if previous pollie decisions and treasury advice that we now have the situation of block obscelescence. Treasury and MFAT have to much influence in defence policy, purchasing and capability and that influence has been detrimental to NZDF and to the NZs security. I strongly suggest that you read back through this thread and the NZDF thread, especially from about 2010 onwards which should give you a good background. Pay attention to Mr Cs postings because he has knowledge of some of the decision making processes at high level.

With regard to the costs of the Orion replacement, you may find that by the time the 2020s roll around, the public attitude towards defence maybe somewhat different to that of the attitude stirred up by the likes of Clark, Goff, Mallard, Locke et al. One just never knows - he says optimistically

 

[firechief]

I have been a long time Guest of this site and and this is my first post.

Although the P8 is a "new" aircraft it is based on the legacy design of the civilian Boeing 737airframe that has been adapted to serve a military role. The needs of open ocean surveillance and the possibility of low level interdiction places the aircraft in a domain that it was never intended. The P8 continues the nearly 60 year trend of adapting civilian aircraft for this role with the Lockheed Electra (Orion / Aurora), De Havalind Comet (Nimrod), and the Bristol Britannia (Argus).

For once a country has chosen to develop a dedicated military naval ISR and interdiction aircraft but to date it has not received any attention on this site, the Kawasaki P 1. From the limited information about this aircraft it will be comparable to if not better than the P-3C it is replacing and that in itself says much about the aircraft.

With the move by the Japanese government to open its armament industry to meet export opportunities this aircraft may be an option to replace the current six aircraft one for one.

Is this a viable option or are there political implications of a Japanese purchase that would preclude its consideration?

With regard to the needs for an EEZ / SAR / Utility transport aircraft there has also been limited attention paid to aircraft other than the C-27 / C-295 battle. Following the OZ Coastwatch program could not a Q 300/400 fitted for the purpose not be a viable option or is the need for a rear ramp tactical airlifter the primary role desired? Given the prevalence of the Q series in use this makes for easy service and is attractive to reserve air crews from the civilian airlines to bolster the pilot pool.

For the record I am not nor have I been in the armed service but I have had a long time interest in the military affairs of New Zealand and my home of Canada.

 

[RegR]

I think NZG will go with P8 regardless of initial outlay as it (maritime ISR function) is now one of our countries main (of very few) force outputs both very important to us, as a maritime nation, and the international community, for flying the flag ie MH370 search/anti-piracy. A modified C295 has its place but is also limited in what it can actually do. It would be like us not replacing the ANZACs and retreating into our local/regional bubble and passing on aspects of our international obligations. The fact our closest allies are choosing this path also holds some sway IMO.

Also our P3 (and therefore future replacements) can also do overland ops/C3/limited offensive ops etc and only cements their 'multi-role' usefulness and importance and whilst coud be done with a lesser platform is the risk worth the costs in terms of reliability, interaoperability and function? Putting a laptop, a coffe machine and some high powered binos into a stripped out turbo-prop may save millions in procurement but will also cost millions in a operational sense(or lack of).

Agreed prices are not just individual platforms but also training, support, infrastructure, through life costs etc etc also but need to be taken into account within the particular projects, the NH90s are a classic example, as to joe public this seems extravagant at first glimpse and therefore less sellable and attractive.

On numbers 4 P8, although not ideal but a detrimental factor of cost, together with say a regional C295 type and say mariner UAV type (not sure why everyone thinks we automatically need triton) would suffice as the overall roles will be shared between them dependant on actual task and priority as opposed to now where P3 does everything ISR regardless. Sharing the burden thus freeing up respective platforms to focus on what they do best individually or in combination of as there will no doubt be overlapping capabilities at times.

To keep it simplistic, P8 mainly international, C295 mainly regional and UAV mainly local (some would argue switching regional,local but just my view) with sensors/fit out/weapons/range to suit. P8 can still do regional/local tasks when required but only when actually needed now.

Do we even have 6 fully operational P3 crews ATM anyway?

So on that and to put numbers to requirements taking into account usefulness, cost, multi role, future proofing, niche etc etc I would suggest (feel free to hate/hire me NZG)

Maritime Patrol - 4 P8 (full sensors, optics, weapons, self protection fit out ie tier1)
- 2-3 C295 (lessor sensors, optics)
- 3 Mariner UAV (as per US homeland security)

Air Transport - 4 A400 (some/all fitted for/with refuel drougues, self protection)
- 2-3 C295 (inter-changeable pods with maritime cousins)
if $$ allows - 2 B737 ERs (maintained in conjunction with P8s)- MrC hates this capability but I'm still a advocate

Now we could suggest full squadrons of everything and that would solve the lack of numbers issue but being the realist I am and knowing the kitty we have treasury would probably still have a minor coronary as it is already going to be an expensive period in defence history (along with our naval requirements) but I put this down to bad financial/timing/obsolescence planning on MOD/Govts side.

Just an idea anyway.

 

[Zero Alpha]

Putting a laptop, a coffe machine and some high powered binos into a stripped out turbo-prop may save millions in procurement but will also cost millions in a operational sense(or lack of).

I don't think anyone has suggested that.

There isn't any good reason why a MX-20 and the Elta EL/M 2022A[V]3 couldn't be fitted to a C-295 - both have been done before.

 

[gf0012-aust]

there is an alternative to P8 in the pipeline for countries like NZ (btw, intial assessments are that P8 is outperforming P3 by significant margins - the only downside is that P8 can't deploy an internal raft like P3, but there are moves to make it a weapons dismount option)

the alternatives are in the midsized platform

Boeing and Bombardier are looking at doing an "Aurora"

ie getting as much P3/P8 gear into a Bombardier Challenger 605, much like the Canadians did when they shovelled S2 Tracker gear into their Orions as they wanted a cheaper fit out

Other mid sized MPA are:
SAAB 340 Metroliner (Singapore option)
SAAB 2000
Bombardier Q400 (Israeli initiative)

 

[ngatimozart]

What you're saying here is that the P-8 has some capabilities the government isn't aware of, and those capabilities make it attractive to the government. Not sure I see the logic behind that one.

Yes as I stated there are capabilities that the NZG will not be party because it is not a participant in the development program nor a confirmed purchaser, however it will be aware of this fact. So there is a logic to this. Secondly there are professionals on this forum (not I) who are aware of the P8s capabilities and who may occasionally post something that is not OPSEC but is within the open source material.

The platform doesn't really matter - if government requires a certain capability set, it can probably be fitted to most platforms.

That is very incorrect. The platform most definitely does matter. You do not send out a jeep with a .50cal to do a M1 Abrams job do you? It has to be horses for courses and the P8 is a MMA, not just an MPA or ISR platform or just a combination of both. I'll add the RAAF thread to your reading list.

The politics make a P-8 deal almost impossible. I just can't see any government in NZ signing up to a a fleet of aircraft that cost half a billion dollars each. A converted cargo aircraft is a much easier sales pitch. And much easier to add capability to over time, when it is political acceptable. That's the beauty of the conversion path. Even a government that relies on the Greens for confidence and supply would be likely to support something like a baseline SeaHerc (essentially a coastguard variant). Fast forward the political clock a term or two and a more right wing government can then add things like subsurface sensors.

Look what happened to Project Sirius. Killed by Labour. Defence re-grouped, split the upgrade package out into smaller pieces, and got the non-controversial parts accepted by government.

Politics change so do not get stuck in the 1995 - 2009 timeframe. As I've said in a previous post a lot of those players have gone or will have moved on with public attitudes to NZDF changing. http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/a...al-new-zealand-air-force-6601-165/#post283348

People need to look at the wider picture beyond specific platforms, political parties and individuals. You must now start looking at a wider regional geopolitical and geostrategic context far beyond the South Pacific and how that is going to impact on NZ in the future, in 2020, 2030 and so on. What are the economic, social and security impacts of a rising China and it's maritime expansionist policies going to have on NZ, Australia and our immediate neighbours. There is climate change and its economic, social and security impacts. There is Russia, Ukraine and Russias empirical ambitions which have taken a very serious turn. All of these impact upon NZ and our Sea Lanes Of Communication. If our SLOC are interfered with or shut we are very seriously in the manure and everybody forgets that. Exactly the same applies to Australia, so you can see why they are more than a little pi**ed at NZs foot dragging in defence.

So whilst quibbling about politics and little pictures do not forget the big picture and read back through the threads as I have suggested because all theses arguments have come up before.

I don't think anyone has suggested that.

There isn't any good reason why a MX-20 and the Elta EL/M 2022A[V]3 couldn't be fitted to a C-295 - both have been done before.

This has been suggested before by other people. The C295 does not have the range nor speed of a P3 or P8, however it is good as a medium range aircraft. IMHO it would be ideal as the EEZ patrol aircraft if it was fitted with a very good maritime surface search radar and then fitted for but not with other ASW / ASuW sensors and weapons. These can be acquired later if needed.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The platform doesn't really matter - if government requires a certain capability set, it can probably be fitted to most platforms.

It can in a variety of ways.

1)Cost of integration into a tight airframe can be horrendous
2)Depends on where airframe is coming from - it can impact on the FMS and ITARs side of the house. I can think of a couple of projects where country of airframe origin would be an embuggerance
3)Just because planes are physically close in dimension doesn't mean that critical performance specs are met - and when the through life costs are calculated things can get very messy

There have been a number of medium range MPA programs that went to custard because the view was that "a plane is a plane....."

To bastardise Animal Farm - "not all planes are equal"

 

[RegR]

I don't think anyone has suggested that.

There isn't any good reason why a MX-20 and the Elta EL/M 2022A[V]3 couldn't be fitted to a C-295 - both have been done before.

If you read back it actually has as a cost cutting measure but I'm of the belief you then limit yourself from the get go with limited options, range, payload, speed etc not to mention cutting your future growth margin and intergration issues for the complex equipment envisaged for P8 (or similar).

To try and make a tier 1 out of a medium platform would be a mistake in my eyes, it would be like trying to retrofit a current P3 into one of the king airs, waste of time, money and capability and physically impossible without degradation of something critical. Keep the Gucci stuff in the P3/P8s for the more demanding jobs and a appropriate regional/local version in the B300/C295s for the more mundane tasks.

 

[StobieWan]

295 has a lot less room for consoles than P3 from memory - can't recall but it's something like 5 less - and I'm assuming all those guys back there aren't just playing Galaxians and doing FB checkins.

 

[Zero Alpha]

To try and make a tier 1 out of a medium platform would be a mistake in my eyes, it would be like trying to retrofit a current P3 into one of the king airs, waste of time, money and capability and physically impossible without degradation of something critical. Keep the Gucci stuff in the P3/P8s for the more demanding jobs and a appropriate regional/local version in the B300/C295s for the more mundane tasks.

I think you could make a tier 1 platform out of something smaller, as long as you accept you're not going to have the full range of capabilities. Tier 1 optics and radar for example, and leaving out ASW or weapons delivery.

One of the reasons I like a modular approach so much is that it allows us to heave greater depth in the areas that we need more of, while retaining a basic level of capability in areas we are less likely to need. With a fleet of half a dozen airframes you could have 4 kits for long range SAR and constabulary-type operations, and a couple of kits for things at the sharper end of the spectrum. If the strategic outlook changes then government can quietly add extra mission modules for the higher end capabilities. I really like the idea of being able to swap a SAR/EEZ-type mission kit from a long range platform into a medium one if that's the right airframe for the mission. For the overland scenarios, something like the Harvest Hawk kit could be useful.

 

[Gracie1234]

I understand a lot of the P8 capabilities are not in the public domain. So just putting the same radar and optics as used by the P8 and even the ability to deliver some weapons on a smaller platform like a C295/Q400 will not give you the same level of capability.
Just guessing here. The likely capabilities not spoken about are likely in the electronic capabilities area such as signals intercepting, jamming, coordination of other assets and potentially the controlling UAVs etc. I am thinking F35 type stuff. Now that in my mind would be the definition of a strategic asset from a future perspective.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I understand a lot of the P8 capabilities are not in the public domain. So just putting the same radar and optics as used by the P8 and even the ability to deliver some weapons on a smaller platform like a C295/Q400 will not give you the same level of capability.
Just guessing here. The likely capabilities not spoken about are likely in the electronic capabilities area such as signals intercepting, jamming, coordination of other assets and potentially the controlling UAVs etc. I am thinking F35 type stuff. Now that in my mind would be the definition of a strategic asset from a future perspective.

The main role of NZ P3's is BAMs and ISR - in the current climate ASW is secondary

There's a reason why countries are looking at complimentary manned/unmanned roles.

Mid sized MPA have some serious limitations - despite the marketing blurbs

 

[ngatimozart]

I think you could make a tier 1 platform out of something smaller, as long as you accept you're not going to have the full range of capabilities. Tier 1 optics and radar for example, and leaving out ASW or weapons delivery.

One of the reasons I like a modular approach so much is that it allows us to heave greater depth in the areas that we need more of, while retaining a basic level of capability in areas we are less likely to need. With a fleet of half a dozen airframes you could have 4 kits for long range SAR and constabulary-type operations, and a couple of kits for things at the sharper end of the spectrum. If the strategic outlook changes then government can quietly add extra mission modules for the higher end capabilities. I really like the idea of being able to swap a SAR/EEZ-type mission kit from a long range platform into a medium one if that's the right airframe for the mission. For the overland scenarios, something like the Harvest Hawk kit could be useful.

I agree about modular systems, in fact they are very good & I am quite keen on them in some but not all circumstances. We don't do long range constabulary missions per se because that would be outside our EEZ, however we do long range surveillance and ISR which is of greater range than the C295 can offer. Not all equipment used in ASW/ASuW/ISR etc., can be modularised because of technical requirements such as cooling etc. So like I said earlier sometimes it has to be horses for courses. The capability requirement conception of operations determines the the airframe and equipment fit, not the other way around.

I understand a lot of the P8 capabilities are not in the public domain. So just putting the same radar and optics as used by the P8 and even the ability to deliver some weapons on a smaller platform like a C295/Q400 will not give you the same level of capability.

You need to look at the NZ area of interest before suggesting such short legged birds. Go and have a look at a map, actually a nautical chart will do. Below is the Realm of New Zealand and that is just our EEZ and areas where we take a constabulary interest. Then there is the NZ SAR Region which is attached below. As you can see that is a very large area and any medium sized turboprop will not have the legs to cover it.

Just guessing here. The likely capabilities not spoken about are likely in the electronic capabilities area such as signals intercepting, jamming, coordination of other assets and potentially the controlling UAVs etc. I am thinking F35 type stuff. Now that in my mind would be the definition of a strategic asset from a future perspective.

The F35 avionics is not available for anything else at the moment and in NZs case is at present cost prohibitive. As the technology matures it will filter out to other platforms. The F35 will not fly in kiwi colours.

 

[Volkodav]

The main role of NZ P3's is BAMs and ISR - in the current climate ASW is secondary

There's a reason why countries are looking at complimentary manned/unmanned roles.

Mid sized MPA have some serious limitations - despite the marketing blurbs

To me it would make sense for NZ to spread their P-8 buy over a period years, slowly supplementing then replacing the Orions to avoid the sticker shock of doing it all at once. They could even intersperse Triton or Mariner buys as they progressively regenerate and improve their capability. Take the opportunity now to get away from the block obsolescence trap as well as moving the spend away from the frigate replacement expense.