Gracie1234
Well-Known Member
If anyone has any info on the Maritime Sustainment Capability could you please post it to the RNZN forum. Thanks.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
P3K2 ASW upgrade approved
Been watching the MPA discussions with interest from the sidelines.
On this note, I see the latest RNZAF News has this little gem of a snippet in it... but this is the first I've heard about it!?!
"On 26 June the Government approved the acquisition of an updated Underwater Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance capability for the P-3K2. The legacy acoustics system was not included in the initial upgrade project, so this new, separate, project will complete the sensor upgrade for the capability".
Clearly sensors only, not weapons! Still want to see a self-protection suite, but hey this is good news!
http://www.airforce.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/airforce-news/afn161.pdf
Been watching the MPA discussions with interest from the sidelines.
On this note, I see the latest RNZAF News has this little gem of a snippet in it... but this is the first I've heard about it!?!
"On 26 June the Government approved the acquisition of an updated Underwater Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance capability for the P-3K2. The legacy acoustics system was not included in the initial upgrade project, so this new, separate, project will complete the sensor upgrade for the capability".
Clearly sensors only, not weapons! Still want to see a self-protection suite, but hey this is good news!
http://www.airforce.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/airforce-news/afn161.pdf
Shows that NZG obviously considers ASW capability significant...
The current Govt does, although I'm struggling to see them losing power in a few months.
I guess it'll be a MOTS modular acoustics systems with sonar buoy s & onboard console. Just how complicated is it to fit such a thing!?!
not hard as they'll be upgrades of existing suites - they'll be mots/gots
there are some interesting sonarbuoy sized "chute launched" solutions on the horizon
Last edited:
Gibbo,
Self Protection for the P-3K was scoped as part of the original K2 upgrade but due to our frames being P-B models (with C wings) and never fitted with SPS, the weight/performance penalty of adding the structural components to the fuselage to support the sensors & buckets was considerable and was thus dropped from the project. There was talk of a pod mounted system carried on the hardpoints but as this had never been certified for a P-3 it is in my opionion unlikley to be a valid option.
Zero Alpha
New Member
Most of the discussion around the MPA/ISR platform really comes down to 'How much is enough?'
It's really an argument that depends on perceptions. If I'm out on a broken down yacht somewhere between Tonga and Auckland, I'd be inclined to say that having the world's best platform circling continuously overhead, supported by a fleet of ultra-long range helicopters might be barely adequate.
Compromise is the name of the game though. If we take an objective assessment of what we have now, we'll probably get something closer to reasonable.
The current P-3 fleet has plenty of range and endurance, a adequate radar and EO fit, and a clapped-out ASW fit. It's got some capability to operate over land, but doesn't have a self protection kit, and short of dropping dumb bombs, has little ability to do much more than provide C2 and ISR support.
For soft power influence, it's superb operating in the pacific for fisheries, customs, ,SAR and ISR support (typically post-disaster). All of those capabilities are used domestically, but the platforms operating cost mean it's rarely used for most domestic tasks. For SAR, 2hrs readiness is too long to be practical for a marine search in the initial response period. A limited number of airframes me then P-3 is often replaced as the standby SAR aircraft by a even less capable C-130.
Even if the P-8 is purchased, 4 airframes simply won't be enough to do the tasks, even before the cost is looked at. I also don't think the P-8 has the flexibility in the SAR role that the P-3 does. I just can't see salvage pumps, fuel, medical supplies, spare parts, etc been thrown out a P-8s door, or able to be deployed via a cargo pod.
The view I have of the C-130 is that almost anything can be made to fit inside it. As well as the basic variants, things like Harvest Hawk, Compass Call, Commando Solo, Combat King, etc demonstrate the inherent flexibility of the platform. In the constabulary and SAR role, the USCG has a huge amount of experience operating C-130-based platforms.
For arguments sake, if we do end up with some P-8s, we're going to need to compliment them with something. That 'something' is more than likely going to be something that doubles as part of the transport fleet.
I think that future transport fleet should include an aerial refuelling capability. It's also more than likely going to include something smaller than a Hercules. If that air transport fleet includes a passenger jet, then it needs to have much longer legs than the 757. Someone mentioned the A330MRTT, without the air refuelling kit.
I'm interested to hear whether or not AAR is a capability worth pursuing. Given the growing demand for overland ISR, is it worth looking at something like Harvest Hawk as part of the air transport fleet? Not a all-singing, all-dancing ISR platform, but certainly useful for SF support, and as a back-up to the primary ISR capability. Potentially useful for training land forces for calling in CAS too.
It's really an argument that depends on perceptions. If I'm out on a broken down yacht somewhere between Tonga and Auckland, I'd be inclined to say that having the world's best platform circling continuously overhead, supported by a fleet of ultra-long range helicopters might be barely adequate.
Compromise is the name of the game though. If we take an objective assessment of what we have now, we'll probably get something closer to reasonable.
The current P-3 fleet has plenty of range and endurance, a adequate radar and EO fit, and a clapped-out ASW fit. It's got some capability to operate over land, but doesn't have a self protection kit, and short of dropping dumb bombs, has little ability to do much more than provide C2 and ISR support.
For soft power influence, it's superb operating in the pacific for fisheries, customs, ,SAR and ISR support (typically post-disaster). All of those capabilities are used domestically, but the platforms operating cost mean it's rarely used for most domestic tasks. For SAR, 2hrs readiness is too long to be practical for a marine search in the initial response period. A limited number of airframes me then P-3 is often replaced as the standby SAR aircraft by a even less capable C-130.
Even if the P-8 is purchased, 4 airframes simply won't be enough to do the tasks, even before the cost is looked at. I also don't think the P-8 has the flexibility in the SAR role that the P-3 does. I just can't see salvage pumps, fuel, medical supplies, spare parts, etc been thrown out a P-8s door, or able to be deployed via a cargo pod.
The view I have of the C-130 is that almost anything can be made to fit inside it. As well as the basic variants, things like Harvest Hawk, Compass Call, Commando Solo, Combat King, etc demonstrate the inherent flexibility of the platform. In the constabulary and SAR role, the USCG has a huge amount of experience operating C-130-based platforms.
For arguments sake, if we do end up with some P-8s, we're going to need to compliment them with something. That 'something' is more than likely going to be something that doubles as part of the transport fleet.
I think that future transport fleet should include an aerial refuelling capability. It's also more than likely going to include something smaller than a Hercules. If that air transport fleet includes a passenger jet, then it needs to have much longer legs than the 757. Someone mentioned the A330MRTT, without the air refuelling kit.
I'm interested to hear whether or not AAR is a capability worth pursuing. Given the growing demand for overland ISR, is it worth looking at something like Harvest Hawk as part of the air transport fleet? Not a all-singing, all-dancing ISR platform, but certainly useful for SF support, and as a back-up to the primary ISR capability. Potentially useful for training land forces for calling in CAS too.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Given the distance NZ is from other landmasses, there is potential in an AAR capability. It is also a capability that can be very handy to 'loan' to an ally, without actually becoming directly involved in a conflict. This can be done either by conducting an AAR mission to refuel allied aircraft while they are en route or returning from their mission, or to take the place of an allied AAR capability, so that the ally's AAR capability can be utilied for a mission. Also with the exception of the US, it does not seem to be a capability many nations have any significant capacity for, like much of the other long-ranged logistical capabilities.
However, AFAIK it is also a capability that NZ has never had, and while I would like to see the NZDF regain several lost capabilities and even add new ones on, I am uncertain whether there would be sufficient funding to support developing an AAR capability, and then maintaining proficiency with it.
-Cheers
Reaver, I'm not picking any fight with you, but I don't like repeating myself ad nauseum and I say to everyone to read back through the threads so you are not special in that regard. I am ex RNZAF and RNZNVR and I am very pro NZDF and I am known here for my dislike of politicians of all flavours. I haven't found a decent use for one yet. I am scathing of NZs attitude towards defence and NZGs, regardless of stripe, philosophy of minimalist defence capability. I am also most times a realist, but I sometimes do have trouble swallowing a week old dead rat or possum dished out by a politician or the media. That's where I come from.
Ah, thanks Reaver. That's the first time I've actually heard such an acknowledgement - very interesting. I'll have to stop bleating on about the lack of SPS on the P3K2 (one of my top nags!) although I am disappointed to learn that. Pity the pod option wasn't pursued but I guess there's few operators who need it so it'd cost NZ a packet to have it developed & supported largely for our own use.
Obviously this is factored into P3K2 deployment planning - they won't be sent into 'hot' areas. That would in my book also rule out any consideration of a stand-off weapon (which is probably overly wishful thinking anyway) because the type would generally need to get into a surface vessels defensive envelope to be close enough to fire such a weapon, and you surely don't do that without a SPS.:unknown
Also from what I understand they would have to rewiretne wings which in itself is a major undertaking. The Penguin would take the P3 within range of any major AAM envelope, hence we'd have to either go with the SPS and / or a longer range weapon such as Harpoon or NSM. Expensive all around bugger.
Just a quick note on the Air Transport Project. In answer to an enquiry to the Minister of Defence office, I have been informed that the work on that is still continuing and that they do not anticipate receiving any advice prior to the election (20th September 2014).
Last edited:
IIRC the plan is to upgrade the ASW systems on the P3K2. The Mk 46 torpedoes are another matter and from what I understand were / are very close to their use by dates. This also affects the RNZN as well. Last I heard were that they had the USN hunting through their old stores for upgradeable parts. I could be wrong but I remember seeing something about it somewhere.
It was me that mentioned the A300MRT without the refuelling capability and whilst I accept that my peers on here are more than likely correct that this will never fly in kiwi colours, it would have to be something looked at, if they choose to go down the road of a passenger jet type transport to replace the B757s. There's not really much out there that has a similar or greater range, lift capability and cabin dimensions to the B757.
The biggest impediment to recapitalisation of the RNZAF air transport and surveillance fleets is the continual NZGs abhorrence to realistically resourcing the RNZAF and NZDF. They refuse to accept the realities of the realpolitik that has happened and is happening in our neck of the woods. Our neck of the woods is where our SLOC are and that is Asia, the Indian Ocean and the Pacific.
I had some involvement with the P3C to AP3 digital upgrade. That required a complete rewire - not just reharnessing bits
the other issues is the weapons buss - and if the "new" weapons system isn't the same as the original buss - or hasn't been certified - then welcome to an integration and cert cycle (kiss another 12 months min goodbye)
WOFTAM - should be looking at MK54 if they want to minimise grief.
Except for CSAR the Herc C130J has show its inadequacy already - RAF realised their deficiency when they needed to use one for maritime patrol (no more Nimrods) in a SAR opn. The internal post analysis re their capability on the job was less than flattering
I'm betting that the lessons learnt debrief is about not using them any more and heading for P8's
That's the problem, they as in the pollies don't or can't see the grief they are causing. Actually they remind me of that Austrian corporal / paperhanger who thought he was a military genius and look what happened to his forces in the end.
I'm not sure any new lessons were learned - I may be wrong, but I suspect everyone on the Hercs knew what they'd get and simply pitched in with a will on tast, then wrote a candid but forgone conclusion. We've got people in P8 as part of the seedcorn initiative and from my personal opinion, I'll shoot anyone suggesting anything other than/less than P8 with a commitment to follow the upgrade cycle the US does. Added to which, an RAF team flying P8 just won an ASW comp, which speaks volumes, given they usually fly dispersed among other units.
I know looking out the window with binocs was what spotted the Bismark but things have moved on since then
For NZ, I'd suggest the same - the geography hasn't changed since buying P3, so short of a radical degree of continental drift making NZ a lot closer to someone else's shoreline, with consequently less water to cover, P8 is the sustainable and logical option.Buy what the big doggy in the yard buys - the upgrades and maintenance are cheaper as they're spread thinner.
Has Fincastle done a lazarus? (ignore - brain fart)
from what I've seen and attended over the last few years - they are the ducks guts
Of the Nimrod crowd I've met, they remind me of Boomer crews - quiet, tight lipped and very self effacing, very aw, shucks, us? Maybe they get louder after a beer or five.
Very good apparently. We should buy them shiny kit and make much use of them.
Shame MRA4 was such a cluck-up. For a maritime nation with so much salt water around, taking a "gap" in MPA is mad. Hopefully NZ will make the right decisions - we're lucky in the UK that both parties seem to have a reasonable grasp on the need for defence and that the general public have a fondness for the armed services. It's not perfect but it's a bit better than in Canada or NZ where both countries appear served by very professional people, who are held in little regard by the political process.
Very good apparently. We should buy them shiny kit and make much use of them.
Shame MRA4 was such a cluck-up. For a maritime nation with so much salt water around, taking a "gap" in MPA is mad. Hopefully NZ will make the right decisions - we're lucky in the UK that both parties seem to have a reasonable grasp on the need for defence and that the general public have a fondness for the armed services. It's not perfect but it's a bit better than in Canada or NZ where both countries appear served by very professional people, who are held in little regard by the political process.