agree - progressive, incremental buys. new doctrine can evolve as they go
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
John Newman
The Bunker Group
V, whilst I agree with the reasoning behind your suggestion, I suppose there is another side of the coin to consider too.
If by spreading the P-8 buy over a much longer period, I supposed there is also the possibility that a 'premium' might end up being paid per airframe because of the same numbers purchased but over a longer period.
Then of course there is the manpower and operational costs of operating two types, P-3's and P-8's concurrently, duplication of air and ground crews, spares holdings for two types, maintenance on two types, etc.
If the P-8 buy is spread out over a much longer period, do you start your procurement a bit earlier so that by the time the P-3's are due to leave service you have all the P-8's in service or is extra money spent on ensuring the P-3's life is extended a bit, or the possibility of a bit of a capability gap due to lower airframe numbers till all P-8's are in service.
Again, whilst I agree with your reasoning, I suppose it has to be balanced against a potential larger operation cost and possible premium cost added to the P-8's because of spreading out the purchase period too.
My thinking is based in part on the suggestion that NZ should replace their six P-3 Orions with a mix of 4 P-8s and a couple of something else because the go all P-8 is seen as too expensive. This would result in all the mixed fleet issues you have high lighted but as a permanent fixture of a less capable force rather than a temporary measure used to make the buy of a homogeneous P-8 fleet affordable.
Zero Alpha
New Member
It'd probably make sense for people to list what they see as their priorities for the P-3 replacement - fairly clear that people are approaching it from different angles and that's obviously leading to the conclusions people have made.
The P-8 i a very capable platform. My concerns about it are:
Could it be a superb platform? Yes, without a doubt. But I'm not sure it's worth the tradeoffs NZ would need to make. It's arguably the world's the premier ASW platform, but ASW isn't a strategic priority for us (if it was, we'd be running towed array sonar on frigates, have helicopters with dipping sonar, and wouldn't have postponed torpedo upgrades for a decade). If we need more ASW emphasis, is the MPA the best place to invest, or is that money better spent on helicopter and frigate equipment?
The P-8 i a very capable platform. My concerns about it are:
- Cost
- Little knowledge on fatigue impact of low-level flight
- Unsuitability for long range SAR
- Doctrinal change required for ASW
- Loitering time less than P-3 or Hercules
Could it be a superb platform? Yes, without a doubt. But I'm not sure it's worth the tradeoffs NZ would need to make. It's arguably the world's the premier ASW platform, but ASW isn't a strategic priority for us (if it was, we'd be running towed array sonar on frigates, have helicopters with dipping sonar, and wouldn't have postponed torpedo upgrades for a decade). If we need more ASW emphasis, is the MPA the best place to invest, or is that money better spent on helicopter and frigate equipment?
Interim reports coming back re P8 are that its superior to the P3 in every respect bar 1 - raft carriage - and that's slated to be fixed by using a pod on one of the weapons rails
at a situational awareness/ISR level its superior to the P3 by some margin.
above confirmed by LRPA during MH370 where data for P8 mission sets were compared against P3's
detail not in the public domain
Last edited:
Zero Alpha
New Member
Interesting perspective - the reports I've heard suggest that the P3-K2 was performing as well as the P-8 for the E-O searches (unsurprising given they use the same basic system). The P-8 radar performance was superior (also not surprising - it's much higher spec). The worrying part was that the P-8 was forced to operate much lower than the planning assumptions, which to me represents an impact on platform serviceability in the longer term.
The 1997 White Paper stated that NZ had a requirement to keep an Orion on station at 700NM from an Orion operating base for 72 hours. That's a big ask for a small aircraft fleet.
The P-8s published endurance is 4 hours on station at 1000NM.
P3's are not even remotely close to the SA and COP capability of the P8's
It's almost a bar fight discussion, but I can think of a number of areas where P8's are superior to the E7's
Granted its been a while since I last attended a P8 brief (12 months +/- month) but holey moley, they were a golden mile ahead of P3's in so many areas it wasn't funny
The SA/ISR capability and concurrent workload ability is significant
Don't all A400 come fitted with refueling equipment as standard?
I'd go A320 or 321, and get Air NZ to maintain them. It's actually a shame that there isn't an Airbus MPA based on the A320, that would fit in with what Air NZ has in it's fleet and they could maintain them for the RNZAF.
I'm curious why anyone would want to build an MPA based on aircraft which are no longer in production, the Saab 340 and 2000 haven't been produced since 1999.
Like the Boeing 737-800/900/ER the A320/1 aircraft do not have the range or capability of the current B757-200 Combi the the RNZAF uses. Therefore going to those would be a decrease in capability. My personal opinion is that we should get three A330 Multi Role Transports sans tanker capability to replace the B757, however realistically if we did get that aircraft it would be two not three. If we go down that road it has to be the same aircraft as the RAAF but without the AAR capability. The RAF A330 Voyagers do not have the strengthened floor or cargo door of the RAAF aircraft. We'll have to wait and see what the Air Transport Study suggests about the B757 replacement.
The A400 is plumbed for AAR but the wing pylon tanks and the fuselage tank are optional extras. The RAF don't have that capability in their aircraft because of the commercial contract with the Air Tanker company, which restricts any UK MOD AAR to Air Tanker.
Last edited:
No idea, but they are being actively marketed as retrofits. I assume that there is a market as SAAB aren't stupid by any means
We had this discussion before, the 737-800/900/ER doesn't have the range of the 757 but the A320/1 NEO does, it's being actively marketed by Airbus as a 757 replacement. The big benefit with A30/1 would be utilising Air NZ's maintenance facilities.
Purely the only reason I stated B737 is to keep commonality with P8 and those associated benefits, and since the airbus MPA seems to have fallen off the radar (bad bad pun) A320, albeit another good choice (yes ANZ maint, very capable etc) would be a separate fleet type altogether and therefore not ideal, not impossible, just not ideal. If it can get to Darwin then it's halfway sold?
Since there is an ongoing debate in parliament as to the future of the current boeings and their VFM status this particular capability therefore needs to be as streamlined and cost effective as possible as it is literally flying on thin ice already (Im on fire).
Ngati I think A330 could prove alittle too costly to sell in this case unless it can be proven without a doubt to be a viable, relevant and purposeful game changer as the beans are rumbling in the backround now wanting justification for what we currently have nevermind such a step up. We would definitely need to work in with our mates across the way on this one to make MRTTs a reality at this stage I feel. As you know Im all for this cap but the money monsters knock me back into sadness.
As for P8 obviously it has to be an improvement over the P3 as it was designed as it's successor otherwise no real point or advantage. ASW is a primary function of P8 as it is with P3 but we have adapted P3 to do other semi-related tasks over the years. We would same same with P8 but easier as it could now be included in the initial build process as opposed to added over time.
If we did, by some miracle, splash out then to avoid block obsolescence again we should really look at the medium transport/MPS soon before the C130/B757s come into their golden(er) years. A 3rd frigate (1st new class) midway between the END/LWSV and ANZAC replacements wouldn't go astray either.......
Too many replacements, too little finances and too few voices in key places means a lot of headaches and heartache still to come for the forces.
Since there is an ongoing debate in parliament as to the future of the current boeings and their VFM status this particular capability therefore needs to be as streamlined and cost effective as possible as it is literally flying on thin ice already (Im on fire).
Ngati I think A330 could prove alittle too costly to sell in this case unless it can be proven without a doubt to be a viable, relevant and purposeful game changer as the beans are rumbling in the backround now wanting justification for what we currently have nevermind such a step up. We would definitely need to work in with our mates across the way on this one to make MRTTs a reality at this stage I feel. As you know Im all for this cap but the money monsters knock me back into sadness.
As for P8 obviously it has to be an improvement over the P3 as it was designed as it's successor otherwise no real point or advantage. ASW is a primary function of P8 as it is with P3 but we have adapted P3 to do other semi-related tasks over the years. We would same same with P8 but easier as it could now be included in the initial build process as opposed to added over time.
If we did, by some miracle, splash out then to avoid block obsolescence again we should really look at the medium transport/MPS soon before the C130/B757s come into their golden(er) years. A 3rd frigate (1st new class) midway between the END/LWSV and ANZAC replacements wouldn't go astray either.......
Too many replacements, too little finances and too few voices in key places means a lot of headaches and heartache still to come for the forces.
Purpose of the T-6c
Hi all, sorry to steer off the p-6 topic, but with the arrival of the RNZAFs T-6c's this month I was wandering about the choice of the T-6c as the new training aircraft for RNZAF pilots. This is as they seem to be designed mainly with the idea of an air superiority trainer and certainly gives off that profile and feel making it a seemingly strange choice for the RNZAF due to the obvious lack of such aircraft within its squadrons. Is this true? And if so why the T-6?
Hi all, sorry to steer off the p-6 topic, but with the arrival of the RNZAFs T-6c's this month I was wandering about the choice of the T-6c as the new training aircraft for RNZAF pilots. This is as they seem to be designed mainly with the idea of an air superiority trainer and certainly gives off that profile and feel making it a seemingly strange choice for the RNZAF due to the obvious lack of such aircraft within its squadrons. Is this true? And if so why the T-6?
in real terms the mission focus has changed - the primary role is ISR/BAMS - ASW is a critical capability but the primary role is LRMP
the shift in ASW aircraft taking a more ISR role was due to a number of issues - primarily the change in mission set caused by the collapse of the cold war - and the fact that GW1 and GW2 showed that these aircraft were providing a superior capability in ISR and were doing things that AWACs and ship patrols could not
The MPA mission set changed close to 25 years ago and has evolved significantly since. The CONOPS as such is quite different now. You could at times be forgiven for thinking that you were reading a hybrid AWACs CONOPS....
Because it is a turboprop trainer and is able to offer abinto and advanced pilot training which is needed for the helos and the multi engine aircraft. After the CT4s retire at the end of this year the RNZAF no longer operate any piston engine aircraft. The T6Cs are not an air superiority trainer. For that you would need a Lead In Fighter Trainer (LIFT) aircraft such as the Bae Hawk or the KAI T50 both of which are jet turbine aircraft.
There are some interesting comments on the capabilities of the C295. I wonder if some are confused by the 3 different varients available. These being the Transport, the Combi MPA/Transport (2 Stations + 4 pallets) and the full MPA (full TACRAIL, 4 stations, weaponised etc)
I was interested in the lack of range/loiter time comments and looking at the specs (especially with the new Winglet & engine mods - 9% increase in range, 6.5% less fuel burn) I wonder if this is really such an issue for the NZDF especially as we stage NORPATS thru our SAR zone.
Flight Global had a article (sorry cannot link until I reach 10 posts) stating that 12 C295 could be acquired for 1/2 the cost of 6 P-8s with the life cycle costs being 1/5 - 1/4 of the P-8s
I was interested in the lack of range/loiter time comments and looking at the specs (especially with the new Winglet & engine mods - 9% increase in range, 6.5% less fuel burn) I wonder if this is really such an issue for the NZDF especially as we stage NORPATS thru our SAR zone.
Flight Global had a article (sorry cannot link until I reach 10 posts) stating that 12 C295 could be acquired for 1/2 the cost of 6 P-8s with the life cycle costs being 1/5 - 1/4 of the P-8s
Thanks Ngati, I've lost count of the number of times I've seen other forums where the T6 is described as a lead-in trainer for fast jets, and therefore questioning the choice for RNZAF. As you point out it's not a lead-in trainer, but a very capable type that can offer basic & advanced training capability, and importantly for RNZAF has a proven synthetic training package behind it (ie: simulators & other ground based courseware).
The Clark Govt threw the training baby out with the bath water in 2001 & ever since the RNZAF have lacked a capable advanced trainer. This purchase is really the last chapter in the whole sorry saga of the loss of ACF.
Anyway.... nice shots here of 01 & 02 arriving at (London) Stanstead. Aviation News – Royal New Zealand Air Force T-6C Texans transit through the UK | GAR
The colour of the tanks on 02 would indicate they're 'loaners' only required for the delivery flight - which makes sense as T6 has ample range for training use with the wing tanks.
Last edited:
Some might but there shouldn't be any real confusion. Have you got the link to that article please. Just put the link as part of the post and we can still get at the link. I can't remember it and I'd like to have a look.
I'd be very interested on how they work there pricing out. Speaking of aircraft pricing, there are different components in aircraft pricing and many articles will just say x number of aircraft were bought by y for z amount. How the z variable is reached may not be stated so just going unit price x = z/x is not a valid statement and can be quite misleading. z might be = flyaway cost + spares inventory + manuals + simulator(s) + training package + servicing contract + weapons + FMS cost (if bought though US Foreign Military Sales program) etc., or parts thereof. Now in NZ when the NZG have a costing they use what is termed the Term of Life Costs so how you can work that out using a rule of thumb is: if you know the flyaway cost take that and 150 - 200% of that to it which will give you the term of life cost. So you can see how it is quite confusing. Then there are the currency issues which are fairly easy to work out. Hope this helps.
flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-pushes-for-UK-maritime-patrol-contest
I think that no mater what costing methodology is used the C295 will be in the ball park figures quoted in the article, and even with a varienance of +/- 25% would still make a compelling argument to be one of the options shortlisted in both the FASC & FAMC Detailed Business Case
I think that no mater what costing methodology is used the C295 will be in the ball park figures quoted in the article, and even with a varienance of +/- 25% would still make a compelling argument to be one of the options shortlisted in both the FASC & FAMC Detailed Business Case