Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Bonza]

I understand if you disagree with my logic and that is your right but to try and shut down debate with personal attacks refelects on the quality of your posts.

Requests for credentials are not really personal attacks, they are quite plainly inquiries made after a user has made a comment about their own credibility - it's not unusual to see this on these forums, so you shouldn't feel as though you're being attacked. I realise you may have just been making an off-hand comment about understanding requirements from your perspective and didn't actually mean you have inside information or work in the industry, and that's fine by me. However, we've had our share of posters over the years who have made claims to prior or current military/industry experience, and turned out to be imposters. So there is always an element of doubt when one brings up something that might be interpreted as "insider" type credibility.

As I said, I don't have a horse in the race - you're welcome to your opinions. All Ngati is wondering about is what you meant when you intimated (from a certain point of view) some kind of knowledge not available for the general public. In any case I wouldn't hold it against you, or Ngati, to ask one another questions in this regard. No need to let it bother you too much. The individual weapons replacement thread was short-legged and ill-advised - don't take it as a barometer for the average thread around here.

Hope you two can work it out amongst yourselves - as I said it's not the big deal you might think it is, once you've been around a little longer and seen some of the pretenders drop in and out you might understand the hesitancy in trusting those who are very keen to volunteer their own experience as the reason their ideas can't be challenged. It is not a personal attack to ask someone to verify a claim they've made, so don't take it that way. Even if all you meant is that you've read the publicly available info and believe you're well versed enough to have an opinion. No shame in that, I'm a civilian myself.

 

[Zero Alpha]

Margaret Thatcher once said that if you have to tell someone you're a lady, it's a good bet you aren't. I've found the same applies to anyone who has to insist that they're a professional.

Reaver's perception is correct. Insisting that if people read everything you've read, or knew everything you know, they'd agree with you isn't a convincing argument.

The ASW capability is the one remaining politically contentious output of the NZDF. It's also at the heart of the 'most appropriate platform for an MPA' debate. Hercules derivatives have much more operational pedigree than the P-8 in every other area. If ASW is required, and that's a political decision, then the P-8 may be a serious contender. But If that political argument can't be made, and won, then I just can't see the P-8 having any chance of being selected.

Personally, I have not seen or heard anything to convince me that 1) ASW is a strategic priority that deserves a cost premium, and 2) that if high-end ASW capability is needed it should be linked to the MPA/ISR platform instead of warships or helicopters.

 

[Volkodav]

ahhh yes the old "he quotes facts to counter statements that are incorrect" so of course he must have a ulterior motive and we dont need to pay any attention to what he said.

You have found me out, I am an Airbus Sales agent sent into the dark depths of the RNZAF Blogs knowing that that is where the future purchasing options for NZ are decided.

Or maybe I am a realist who understands how Capability development in the NZDF works and would like to have a reasoned debate with other knowledgeable individuals so that I can validate if my arguement holds weight or has implications that I may not of thought of and thus should change my way of thinking.

P-8 good (shiney/new) - C295 bad (slow/small) is not my definition of a reasoned debate

I've been shopping for a new car recently and the way you rattled of the facts and figures as well as referencing favorable articles in such a polished manner just struck a chord and brought a smile to my face. I have actually seen worse jobs done by technical sales reps trying to sell me test equipment.

 

[Todjaeger]

Can someone who is proposing that the C295 does not have the Capability (i.e. mission systems rather than performance) of the P-8 or P-3 please provide examples of what the deficiencies are.

My understanding is that previous C295 Persuader MPAs have been installed with 2022 Radar, MX-20 EO turrets, CNS/ATM complient Glass cockpit, FITS mission systems, AIS, Tactical Data Links, MILSATCOM, ASW systems, Plyon mounted torpedeos, Self Protection Systems, Air - Ground weapons.

What extra does the P-8 have that is worth the extra $200 Million per airframe i.e. $65M vs $250M.

As I have said in previous posts we can all sit back and make "wouldnt it be great if we brought ......" comments but Capability is acquired by the NZDF/MoD using the Capability Management Framework and the Better Business Case model. Unless you can make a valid arguement to the Government (Treasurary)in a business case for expensive platform options the chance of sucess is low. I have yet to see a arguement for why NZ would purchase a P-8 especially when you factor in the lack of suitable hangars at Whenuapai and the fact that you cannot takeoff at max fuel weight due to the runway being to short.

The fact that the C295 meets the majority of the FAMC requirments and hence could share ILS, infrastructure & simulators across SQNs makes the case against P-8 that much harder, not impossable but harder.

What is the case (i.e. specific details) for P-8s in the NZDF?

Okay, where to begin.

I suppose I should start by pointing out that a number of the figures mentioned in the above are incorrect, sometimes significantly so.

The price of $65 mil. 'flyaway' sounds about right for a C-295 MPA, since the HC-144A Ocean Sentry, which is a USCG version of a CN-235 MP costs about USD$50 mil. with about USD$30 mil. of that being the cost for a 'green' airframe.

The 2014 "flyaway" cost of a P-8A Poseidon is about USD$174 mil. which is quite a bit lower than the mentioned $250 mil. i.e. you are off about 40% in terms of the P-8 Poseidon pricing.

People have also been fairly consistently wrong about the listed range/loiter/mission endurance times too. Per Boeing & USN NAVAIR, the P-8A Poseidon has a 4 hour loiter time at 1,200 n miles, not 1,000 n miles. In terms of just time, a C-295 MPA is listed as having a loiter time of up to 11 hours. The loiter time for a P-8A is 15-18 hours

Also worth noting, is that the cost of the MPA/ISR/BAMS avionics aboard the P-8 is about USD$30 mil. per aircraft which I do believe is a fair amount more than the cost of similar avionics aboard a C-295 MPA, which in turn would suggest that a P-8 has a more comprehensive avionics suite, and the actual components themselves are overall going to be more capable.

I am also fairly certain (do not have access to appropriate figures) that the power generation capacity of a P-8 is greater than a C-295, which can be an advantage given the types and numbers of avionics being utilized.

Lastly, the P-8 has 7 workstations for onboard system operators, while the C-295 only has 4. This means that more operators can be performing tasks aboard the P-8 at the same time than aboard the C-295. This can help in performance because of workload sharing by operators so that an operator could focus on just radar returns, or perhaps even a single type of radar return, or have multiple operators looking at the same information to make sense of it. By contrast, having fewer workstations reduces the ability of the aircrew to share the workload, and/or require operators to keep an eye on what is coming in from multiple sensors at the same time.

Again, a C-295 in MPA configuration performs a similar overall sort of function that a P-8 does, but it does not do it to the same degree or with the same capability. In fact, a C-295 is not as overall capable as an up to date P-3. That should be a fact which is blatently obvious, given the number of nations looking at the P-8 as a P-3 replacement. The question those nations ask tends to be, "can we afford it?" and not, "can it do what we need it to?" OTOH the smaller MPA (C-295, CN-235, Q300/400, ATR-42, etc. al.) tend to be looked at as adjuncts to augment the surveillance capabilites over shorter ranges for nations which operate the P-3, or by nations that have not really had a maritime patrol/surveillance capability before. Or by nations looking to replace the P-3 who ask the question, "can it do what we need it to?"

 

[Volkodav]

Ngati, why is it when someone makes an arugement you dont agree with you pull out the show us your credientials comment? You did it in the Replacement Individual Weapons thread and you are trying to do it to me.

I am struggling to see where my "failures" in my arguements are, maybe it is in pointing out the correct range figures for the C295 or maybe it is stating the the NZDF/MoD follows the CMF & BBC process.

I understand if you disagree with my logic and that is your right but to try and shut down debate with personal attacks refelects on the quality of your posts.

As to my credentials I will leave that up to the viewers to judge based on my arguements to date, and I have to agree with 40 South this is a good discussion and long may it continue

When someone claims knowledge, experience or service, irrespective of whether other members agree or disagree with them then credentials are asked for. If provided, well and good, if not the mods ask you to cease claiming such. Now if you are an Airbus salesman then no problem

 

[Bonza]

Reaver's perception is correct. Insisting that if people read everything you've read, or knew everything you know, they'd agree with you isn't a convincing argument..

But that's not the argument. The disagreement arose from a query Ngati made about the background of another member, based on the perception that said member had made a claim of some professional knowledge of the subject. Now whether or not that perception is correct is not yet clear, but no one on here is saying "if you knew what I knew you'd agree" - that's antithetical to discussion, which is the whole point of a forum. If at times a member reminds another member that there are people "in the profession" taking part in discussions, it isn't the same as saying "if you only knew, you'd agree", or "you're not in the business, therefore you're wrong". It's basically a reminder that, if there's consistent disagreement between parties and one of them works in the area, then it's probably helpful for oneself and for the discussion to give their ideas some further consideration.

You can take it in an adversarial way if you wish but I don't know why you'd want to, as I'm sure we all have better things to do than argue over pointless distinctions on the internet...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Margaret Thatcher once said that if you have to tell someone you're a lady, it's a good bet you aren't. I've found the same applies to anyone who has to insist that they're a professional.

its a requirement on here because we want to know whether people are talking from experience, on the job or otherwise - we and I in particular have caught out people claiming expertise when its pretty apparent that all they are doing is repackaging stuff they've seen on other forums or general media - and then treat it as gospel - sometimes its pretty apparent that some of those people have no appreciation or understanding of the broader issues - let alone platform, then CONOPs issues.

Reaver's perception is correct. Insisting that if people read everything you've read, or knew everything you know, they'd agree with you isn't a convincing argument.

its not about agreement - its about an awareness of the issues - I for one get sick of rehashing things when a decent read of the thread would relieve a lot of people about pet convictions. If you don't have a firm understanding of the principle debate then all you do is make people cranky. I find it particularly discourteous. There are people in here who are very proficient in their jobs and some are very much the SME outside of the forum - so when you see some (not necessarily you) preaching to the SME about how the platform works, or how the job is done - and when we know that those claims have no relationship to how the job is actually done - well, we get a tad miffed. walk softly and read the room first

The ASW capability is the one remaining politically contentious output of the NZDF. It's also at the heart of the 'most appropriate platform for an MPA' debate. Hercules derivatives have much more operational pedigree than the P-8 in every other area. If ASW is required, and that's a political decision, then the P-8 may be a serious contender. But If that political argument can't be made, and won, then I just can't see the P-8 having any chance of being selected.

How is the C130J better at BAMS/ISR/LRMP/C4ISR than the P8? Having dealt with both platforms I am more than curious - and I've seen the C130 LRMP/ISR proposals die off very quickly across a number of militaries. Sure the model of the C130nn is sitting on the bosses desk with approp roundels attached - but thats as far as it got. I cannot think of any area apart from STOL that a C130 becomes competitive

Personally, I have not seen or heard anything to convince me that 1) ASW is a strategic priority that deserves a cost premium, and 2) that if high-end ASW capability is needed it should be linked to the MPA/ISR platform instead of warships or helicopters.

The US and RAN/RAAF would probably ask whether its because NZ assumes that we will carry that ball across the field for you

I can tell you first hand from NZDef exchange officers and govt executive that they don't subscribe to your view

NZ has the population of Sydney - check your territorial responsibilities, check your trade/traffic figures and then think about how a MRPA is going to adequately deal with the req. It won't meet your CONOPs for NZ Fisheries let alone Defence of the realm

 

[Todjaeger]

The ASW capability is the one remaining politically contentious output of the NZDF. It's also at the heart of the 'most appropriate platform for an MPA' debate. Hercules derivatives have much more operational pedigree than the P-8 in every other area. If ASW is required, and that's a political decision, then the P-8 may be a serious contender. But If that political argument can't be made, and won, then I just can't see the P-8 having any chance of being selected.

Personally, I have not seen or heard anything to convince me that 1) ASW is a strategic priority that deserves a cost premium, and 2) that if high-end ASW capability is needed it should be linked to the MPA/ISR platform instead of warships or helicopters.

I respectfully disagree, on a number of levels and in a number of respects, with the quoted text.

For starters, a non-helicopter MPA (maritime patrol aircraft) is much more than "just" an ASW platform, they are an ISR/BAMS asset, the ASW component while important is not the 'most' important. The ability to scan an ocean area with a powerful, sensitive, yet accurate radar radar from altitude provides a much greater scanned area than from basically any other type of platform. The only thing which can really come close is a naval helicopter, but they cannot really carry a radar of the same capability due to size, weight, power gen limitations, and a helicopter cannot reach the same sort of altitude that a fixed wing aircraft, especially a turbofan-powered one. Also the larger fixed-wing MPA like a Dash 8 and larger have the room for multiple system operators, which enable the MPA to make better use of their sensors, because system operators can interpret the information coming in to choose areas which should be focused on. Most naval helicopters only have one system operator with a pair of pilots. Aboard a vessel, there could of course be room for multiple system operators, but the sensors aboard the vessel are much lower in altitude, so the radar and visual horizon is much shorter so a vessel would need to be much closer to a contact before potentially detecting it, regardless of whether the contact was airborne, surface, or subsurface.

As for NZ having a minimal need for an ASW capability, that does seem to be the assumption that Gov't has made. IMO that is wrong and potentially dangerous, given the amount of trading NZ does by sea (IIRC about 97%). With the projected increase in sub numbers in areas along NZ's SLOC in the coming years, as well as the increasing tensions and projections of potential conflicts and the likelihood of such conflicts erupting, there is a very real potential for significant increases in shipping costs to and/or from NZ to various markets. Or some of the shipping routes might just no longer be available options. AFAIK (Alexsa and/or others who might know better, please jump in with corrections) but basically all trade that NZ does with Asia, Africa, or Europe ends up passing through the South China Sea at some point during the voyage. NZ might very well find itself needing to send a MPA out into the area in cooperation with Oz, the US, and/or others, or else find itself virtually cut off from trading with Europe, and need to find new navigational routes to the Mideast, portions of Asia, and Africa.

I agree with assessments which suggest that there is little likelihood of hostile subs operating in NZ waters and/or targeting NZ shipping. Unless of course the All Blacks really give the Wallabies a beating... The problem of course continues to be that much of the NZ population, Gov't and decision makers continue to only look in the area immediately around NZ, and seeing no apparent threats in the immediate vicinity deem NZ safe and that there are not threats to the Kiwi way of life. The best analogy I can think of for this sort of mindset would be that of a person who lives in a nice, safe neighborhood looking around their home and seeing no potential threats saying, "I am safe," while the person completely ignores or forgets the fact that they need to travel through some potentially dangerous areas while commuting for work, and/or when shopping, dining out, etc.

 

[Zero Alpha]

I can tell you first hand from NZDef exchange officers and govt executive that they don't subscribe to your view

You must speak to different cabinet ministers than I do.

 

[kiwi in exile]

.
The ASW capability is the one remaining politically contentious output of the NZDF. It's also at the heart of the 'most appropriate platform for an MPA' debate. Hercules derivatives have much more operational pedigree than the P-8 in every other area. If ASW is required, and that's a political decision, then the P-8 may be a serious contender. But If that political argument can't be made, and won, then I just can't see the P-8 having any chance of being selected.

Personally, I have not seen or heard anything to convince me that 1) ASW is a strategic priority that deserves a cost premium, and 2) that if high-end ASW capability is needed it should be linked to the MPA/ISR platform instead of warships or helicopters.

I can see where you're comming from. In a post cold war world is top end airborne ASW really necessary for NZ? Some would say less so, but I would hate to see us loose this capability. Im thinking of the growing proliferation of subs around asia-pacific and increasing pressure on resources into the future, not to mention our dependence on clear sea lanes etc. We need to be at least fitted for, as I'd hate to see us have to play catch up if whatever platform we replaced the p3's with was not fitted for this. Recall the recent conversation on this thread about having to rewing/rewire the p3s to gain some missile capability- missed opportunity.

Gaining and maintaining such a capability set would definitely need to match our pol/strategic needs and be within a realistic budget. But your comment seems to suggest to me a further whittling down on NZDF combat capability. This may not have been your intention and your are probably being a realist, but I'd definitely prefer more naval combat capability for NZDF.

 

[Todjaeger]

You must speak to different cabinet ministers than I do.

If you speak with cabinent ministers, there is something I would like you to do, and then record the reaction or response from the minister(s).

Show the minister(s) a world map, with NZ clearly marked in a noticable colour. Have the waters making up NZ's EEZ, the EEZ's of nations NZ has patrol responsibility for, as well as NZ's SAR region all clearly marked in another very noticable colour. Next have the map marked showing the specific shipping routes that the top ten exports from and imports to NZ take, with each specific route being marked clearly and seperately. Include a key for the map explaining what each individual colour indicates, as well as the numbers/percentages for the trade activities.

I often have the sense that NZ pollies really have no idea how much impact problems in an area like the Malacca Straits would have upon NZ.

 

[gf0012-aust]

You must speak to different cabinet ministers than I do.

the quality of the debate is on how you approach the discussion

pecker discussions go nowhere

But if the ministers you are speaking to don't understand the fundamentals, then you might as well speak to a fire hydrant

 

[gf0012-aust]

If you speak with cabinent ministers, there is something I would like you to do, and then record the reaction or response from the minister(s).

Show the minister(s) a world map, with NZ clearly marked in a noticable colour. Have the waters making up NZ's EEZ, the EEZ's of nations NZ has patrol responsibility for, as well as NZ's SAR region all clearly marked in another very noticable colour. Next have the map marked showing the specific shipping routes that the top ten exports from and imports to NZ take, with each specific route being marked clearly and seperately. Include a key for the map explaining what each individual colour indicates, as well as the numbers/percentages for the trade activities.

I often have the sense that NZ pollies really have no idea how much impact problems in an area like the Malacca Straits would have upon NZ.

big fish small pond mentality

see my prev

I suspect that they would schitt themselves once they actually see the overlays

 

[kiwi in exile]

The systems just going to mention one of the radars on the p8 here as an indicator of the step change in improved capability. The P8 airframe will be fitted with the Raytheon Advanced Airborne Sensor (AAS). The AAS is an advancement on the black project Littoral Surveillance Radar System (LSRS) carried on some P-3s. We're learning more about LSRS lately, such as it's capable of being used to target stand off missiles. The LSRS is based on an AESA platform, and is a double sided antenna, allowing it to look left and right, and can interleave GMTI and SAR modes at the same time, instead of either one or the other. The LSRS is said to be much better than the APY-7 carried by the E-8, and the AAS is an improvement on LSRS.

As I understand it the standard radar for the P8 is the AN/APY10 and the AAS is a system currently being tested by the USN, more 'fitted for, but not with' I imageine it being used with selected P8's the same way that LRSR was used with selected P3's. I also doubt that we will see it outside the USN. However, as I stated in a prev comment, I would very much like to see it on an NZ MPA

 

[Cadredave]

the quality of the debate is on how you approach the discussion

pecker discussions go nowhere

But if the ministers you are speaking to don't understand the fundamentals, then you might as well speak to a fire hydrant

And from my experiences your get a better response talking to fire hydrants.

 

[RegR]

I actually cannot believe we are trying to compare C295 to P8? It (C295) would still be a step down from our current P3s therefore why would we consider it a challenger to P8? It's like saying C295, C130 and A400 are all pretty much the same so we may as well save millions and take the cheaper option as it will be good enough for most things, right?

I think I can guess what you have in mind for the herc replacements........

I think some are judging these platforms too much from a ASW viewpoint whereas in a NZ context exactly how much of our current P3 hours is taken up with ASW anyway? We do not even have subs and our orions seem to be based in NZ quite a lot otherwise wouldn't you say?

SAR, EEZ patrols(not just our vast EEZ either), overland recon support even flag flying are all options the P3s excel at, oh and they also do ASW from time to time. A critical enabler of SAR and patrolling (Illegal fishing vessels not subs btw) is range and time on station, something I think we can all agree the heavys have over the mediums in spades and in this case more is actually better for NZs purposes.

They are individually good at what they do but there is a certain distinction in what they do and how they get it done. Not even getting into the sensor/weapons fitout P8 has it over C295 but where C295 has it over the P8 is the economical lesser duties. P3/P8 for the complex, duration and long haul and C295 for the simpler closer to home stuff.

Also the argument for no hangerage for P8s is alittle off as we have larger 757s (40 and 5 hangers are the same size) and not all aircraft can fit in the hangers at once anyway so if no need they sit on the tarmac.

No comparison in my view unless we are downgrading the maritime patrol capability in which case C295 is a fine platform, next will be OPVs instead of frigates and trading the LAVs in for a fleet of armoured hiluxs.

 

[Reaver]

Wow lots of comments overnight, good to see there is a bit of interest and the comments are providing lots of details.

RegR - I don't think any one here disagrees that the P-8 is superior to the C295 or a P-3K2 based on range & performance. What the disagreement seems to be is over wheather the increase in performance is worth the 3x cost per airframe.

The missions you state the P-3 excells at can be all be done by a C295 fitted out with a MPA install (2022 Radar, MX-20, ARC-210s etc are all installed to the P-3K2) and noting the the P-3K2 does not and problably will not have self protection it is limited in what overland Ops role it will perform. The Portuguese have determined that the C295 carries out 70% of their current P-3 missions, would we be any different? I believe that all of the current & future systems on the P-3K2 including UWISR can be installed to a C295 and this is what the Flight Global article referencing the UK proposal hinted at.

Yes Tod the P-8 has 7 stations & this provides great flexability but again is it worth the cost? We manage 6 station on the P-3 currently with ASW "non-integrated standalone" so effectivly a 5 Station Tacrail.

Range of a C295 is an issue with our EEZ & SAR coverage area of course however this can be partialy mitigated by staging aircraft thru the Islands, and here is an idea - how about we set up a permanent overseas base, to provide rapid response, Lauthala Bay ring a bell great for recruiting. Satellite coverage & resourcing sharing with RAAF for the Southern Ocean is a lot cheaper than buying P-8s for the 5% of missions that require the range & performance extension over the C295.

People have questioned my statements on being an "expert". I think I have stated that I understand how Capability development is actioned in the NZDF/MoD. I would hope that my referencing the Capability Mnagement Framework and Better Business Case models would show what I am basing my claims on. These docs are open source on the NZDF website, they describe the process that is followed to bring Capability into service and like it or not they are mandatory as proscribed by Government. A Busisness Case will be written for FASC & FASC that will go to Capability Mangement Board, Treasurary & Cabinet for approval and value for money (Economic Case) and affordability (Financial Case) will be considered (especially when you are spending Billions of $) to determine the solution.

Business Cases have to provide multiple Options with the pros/cons listed so I fully expect that P-8s, A400s, C-17s (if available), C-130Js (doubt Sea Hercs as there are no in service fleets), UAVs, C295s, Q400s plus the standard "Do Nothing" option will be presented as possible solutions but when one of the Options is 1/3 of the cost of the other proposals and meets 80% of the requirements then the arguements to discount it had better be valid and watertight.

People can rage against the machine as much as like on this but it is the reality Cap Branch/MoD work to. Maritime Sustainment Capability had this exact issue, to expensive & not enough benifits in the Projection Capability so it was cut from the Project to allow for Frigrate Sustainment Upgrade to be approved.

 

[Todjaeger]

Business Cases have to provide multiple Options with the pros/cons listed so I fully expect that P-8s, A400s, C-17s (if available), C-130Js (doubt Sea Hercs as there are no in service fleets), UAVs, C295s, Q400s plus the standard "Do Nothing" option will be presented as possible solutions but when one of the Options is 1/3 of the cost of the other proposals and meets 80% of the requirements then the arguements to discount it had better be valid and watertight.

There is a huge and glaring problem with adopting the attitude mentioned in the bolded text. Namely, what happens to the 20% of requirements which are not met.

As for the idea of "basing" some smaller patrol aircraft on some of the further islands, that might work (and I have in fact suggested that previously) for some of the inhabited islands north of NZ which are currently getting periodic patrolling by Kiwi P-3K2's. However, such an idea does not work quite so well for Southern Ocean areas and Antarctic claims, unless NZ was willing to develop, maintain, supply and staff bases on barren and uninhabited islands in the bleak middle of nowhere. If memory serves, some of those islands have deliberately been left undeveloped/unexploited as preserves for migratory wildlife.

IMO too often the NZDF has been basically forced by the decision makers in Gov't to postpone replacement of kit, and/or had capabilities deleted because the powers that be felt that whatever the item was, was "not really needed" or otherwise worthwhile. So far the NZDF has largely managed with this happening, but this has also occasionally caused a problem like in the 2010 Thai coup, when Gov't directed that RNZAF transports be flown to Thailand to evacuate Kiwis. At the time there were no airworthy RNZAF transports able to make the journey and carry out the mission as directed to by Gov't. Something to keep in mind when people feel that 80% of capability might be "close enough"...

 

[RegR]

Wow lots of comments overnight, good to see there is a bit of interest and the comments are providing lots of details.

RegR - I don't think any one here disagrees that the P-8 is superior to the C295 or a P-3K2 based on range & performance. What the disagreement seems to be is over wheather the increase in performance is worth the 3x cost per airframe.

The missions you state the P-3 excells at can be all be done by a C295 fitted out with a MPA install (2022 Radar, MX-20, ARC-210s etc are all installed to the P-3K2) and noting the the P-3K2 does not and problably will not have self protection it is limited in what overland Ops role it will perform. The Portuguese have determined that the C295 carries out 70% of their current P-3 missions, would we be any different? I believe that all of the current & future systems on the P-3K2 including UWISR can be installed to a C295 and this is what the Flight Global article referencing the UK proposal hinted at.

Yes Tod the P-8 has 7 stations & this provides great flexability but again is it worth the cost? We manage 6 station on the P-3 currently with ASW "non-integrated standalone" so effectivly a 5 Station Tacrail.

Range of a C295 is an issue with our EEZ & SAR coverage area of course however this can be partialy mitigated by staging aircraft thru the Islands, and here is an idea - how about we set up a permanent overseas base, to provide rapid response, Lauthala Bay ring a bell great for recruiting. Satellite coverage & resourcing sharing with RAAF for the Southern Ocean is a lot cheaper than buying P-8s for the 5% of missions that require the range & performance extension over the C295.

People have questioned my statements on being an "expert". I think I have stated that I understand how Capability development is actioned in the NZDF/MoD. I would hope that my referencing the Capability Mnagement Framework and Better Business Case models would show what I am basing my claims on. These docs are open source on the NZDF website, they describe the process that is followed to bring Capability into service and like it or not they are mandatory as proscribed by Government. A Busisness Case will be written for FASC & FASC that will go to Capability Mangement Board, Treasurary & Cabinet for approval and value for money (Economic Case) and affordability (Financial Case) will be considered (especially when you are spending Billions of $) to determine the solution.

Business Cases have to provide multiple Options with the pros/cons listed so I fully expect that P-8s, A400s, C-17s (if available), C-130Js (doubt Sea Hercs as there are no in service fleets), UAVs, C295s, Q400s plus the standard "Do Nothing" option will be presented as possible solutions but when one of the Options is 1/3 of the cost of the other proposals and meets 80% of the requirements then the arguements to discount it had better be valid and watertight.

People can rage against the machine as much as like on this but it is the reality Cap Branch/MoD work to. Maritime Sustainment Capability had this exact issue, to expensive & not enough benifits in the Projection Capability so it was cut from the Project to allow for Frigrate Sustainment Upgrade to be approved.

You have stated exactly what is the downfall for C295 yourself, range, and along with speed and future growth this for NZ this is a major factor nevermind the added sensor capabilities. There is your justification for cost right there.

P3 self protection for overland ops is limited ATM but is all mission dependant, unless we were getting involved in say the Ukranian conflict or open conflict with a med to major player then not an issue. Timor, Sollies, middle east, even Afghan (not too many Buks around) are all able to be flown over, landing may be location dependant but again, range. Self protection not an issue with P8 an again that's where those extra costs come in, something you would also have to add to C295 at cost.

MOD/Cap branch will also take these factors into account and way up risk vs reward and cost vs capability, they are not out there to automatically go for an inferior option because it will keep treasury happy as the price of capability, safety and people is a lot higher.

We don't want a 70% soloution of our current ability that is stretched we need to be at 100% or as close as possible taking us into the future. A step up not a step back otherwise we will be compounding current problems and creating future ones.

Instead of us defending the value of a P3/P8 type platform maybe you could tell us the benefits of a C295 type in the NZ context (full spectrum) as other than the obvious (cost) I am still not sold on it being our primary maritime patrol/ISR answer.

 

[htbrst]

Y
We don't want a 70% soloution of our current ability that is stretched we need to be at 100% or as close as possible taking us into the future. A step up not a step back otherwise we will be compounding current problems and creating future ones.

Thats I guess if your thinking C295's instead of P-3's or P-8's. If instead you cut 1-2 C-130 or P-3 replacements, and purchased a small fleet of C295's to augment in both MPA and transport roles, you may end up with a more balanced force where the teir one MPA/transport gets to spend more effective time doing the 'real work' overseas or further from NZ than an extra airframe would do.