That lines up with the post from Chis73 about the Norwegian possible buy and the limited time frame. The Norwegians looking at the P-8 is a good thing for us.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
The C-2 was considered and rejected as being too risky. Maybe by 2023 it could have its international certification issues sorted. The C-2 was designed and developed to domestic certification standards prior to the Article 9 policy reappraisal by Shinzo Abe - a complex and expensive prospect to get US/EU cert that NZ would demand. The JASDF have ordered a further 3 this year and are paying USD190m for them. They are also trying to sell it to Vietnam and other Asian nations.
I wouldn't say it has been rejected - more that it is still under consideration. As usual, we can learn more from overseas sources than our own government. Note this quote from the Japanese Minister of Defense in a press release from the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore back in June (credit to kaz from the Warships1 board):
(source)
Glad to see that the Kawasaki P-1 & C-2 are at least under official consideration (which they whole-heartedly deserve). The Japanese are building these relatively slowly (3 to 5 a year), so they should be still in production post-2020.
Regarding a P-8 purchase: considering the govt seems to have rejected $700m for 2x C-17, what odds on them stumping up $1.2b+ for 4x P-8s by next year?
Would still like to see an immediate buy of a C295 combi MPA / transport with the palletised FITS system (say four) as an insurance policy. Just needs some kind of bolt-on cover for the surface-search radar when undertaking transport missions into short (sub 3000ft) unprepared fields (particularly common in the Pacific outside of the main centres/islands). I think the recent cyclone relief missions have highlighted a capability gap here (relying on the NH90 to do long-range supply drops is an inefficient method & expensive in terms of maintenance requirements; not to mention the significant delays in getting the NH90 & the Canterbury there in the first place - usually 10 days post the event). A Herk would have trouble getting into many of these fields (would have to rely on air-drop), and a Kingair can't carry pallets.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
I can't help be a bit sceptical about Boeing's time-line, although I understand their sales team wanting to get potential customers signed up. The UK announcement suggests assembly will still be happening 4-5 years from now.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/farnborough-uk-firms-up-two-big-military-buys-427216/
There maybe long lead items that have to be factored in.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Consideration of a C-17 Air Transport Capability [Ministry of Defence NZ]
See the Briefing to the Minister dated 29 Feb 2016, paras 58 and 59.
It mentions both the A400 and what they call the Kawasaki YCX as the only alternative airlifters capable of reaching Antarctica with no point of safe return. It points out that both aircraft are still in development, making it impossible for Defence to accurately assess purchase and running costs, maintenance requirements etc. It concludes "..both are immature aircraft and neither can be recommended, especially not as a near-term solution'."
Yeap and increment 3 with advanced ASW capabilities is not due until 2020. Norwegians are interested, the RoK will look to replace its P-3's and the P-8 has figured in its plans. Turkey has raised discussions and the Danes are about where we are with it. Of course the Canadians will have to do something someday as well.
Last edited:
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
By the time Canada gets around to replacing our version of the P3, the CP140, I foresee a Bombardier solution involving the new C series aircraft which is in the same league as the B737. The systems used in the original as delivered CP140 were from the Lockheed S3. So integrating systems in an air frame shouldn't be too much of an issue and Canadian content and a political patronage package to Bombardier will be maintained. I say this because they haven't been able to sell their planes to the Canadian government for years and won't get the long awaited SAR contract that is due to be awarded by years end. The military preference has always been C27. Like NZ we fly, sail or drive our military hardware long past the expiry date ie. 52 year old Sea kings, 53 year old Hercs, 45 year old destroyers, 50 year old Snowbirds Tutor display aircraft, 30 year old cargo trucks. The list goes on.
The KC390 has always been seen as having an outside chance of being acquired by NZDF mainly because of ongoing support and maintenance. However Embrear and Boeing have deepened their agreement with Boeing now handling global sales, support and maintenance for the aircraft. Whilst the KC390 is still regarded as an outsider for the FAMC, the new agreement arrangement will remove some of the risk and uncertainty.
My personal view is that as the KC390 matures it's chances should improve significantly, as it offers a significant performance and range payload advantage over the 130J, a price advantage and a technology advantage. Embraer as the worlds third biggest builder of commercial aircraft have an increasing reputation for their excellent products and the selection of the A-29 Super Tucano by the USAF won't do this any harm. The KC390 would allow us to get a LAV across the Tasman.While the C130J is often said to be an easier and safer option it gives us little advantage over what we have and to take the safer or easier option invariably leads to a lack of progress. Progress requires that someone steps forward into the unknown.(In a controlled and calculated way, hopefully)
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Unsure if the KC 390 can actually fit a Lav 3 internally, or more likely to deploy, a NH 90. Do you have specs on clearance/height wise inside the plane? i admit it does look more promising a prospect for the tactical lift anyway with Boeing behind them now.
Published cargo bay dimensions are 17.75 m X 3.45 m X 2.9 m assuming they are accurate.
Seems a bit squeeky for height carrying an LAV but doable, and too small to carry an NH-90
oldsig
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Other thing i just realised, as DWP mentioned we will be up armouring the Lav, that throws current specs right out the window! It might end up too wide for the KC 390, and if it cant carry the NH90 as you say, that will limit it to personnel and cargo.
The LAV III (or Canadian ones anyway) are 2.7m wide, so that leaves only about 70cm to play with. I'm not aware of the extent of the Kiwi upgrade, but the Canadian upgrade doesn't appear to have much impact on width that you can see from photos.
But for the NH-90, using NHI's own figures it's too wide and too high to fit even absent the tail and main rotors.
oldsig
A paper from Second Line of Defense that looks at the P8 Poseidon / MQ4C Triton combination. It explains how different the operation methodology of the P8 is to that of the P3 Orion, its contemporaries and its predecessors. In the NZ context it shows how we will have to change our way of working and adopt something akin to the RAAF Plan Jericho in order to be able to utilise the new technology to its fullest capabilities, not just in the P8 but right across the NZDF.
I have not finished reading it yet but boy it changes the whole script in regard to how the P8 can be used and what functions can be carried out by this aircraft, the weapons it can use and the information it can collect, however I would still like to see more than 4 in the RNZAF. You only need one on major servicing and one on minor servicing or rectification and you have got very skinny on availability for the 24/7 scenario that may be required from time to time. An other manned/unmanned platform would help, but should it be a combat situation that platform may not be of any use.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
My sentiments exactly. And just because USA and Australia are opting for both P8 and the Triton Uav , doesnt mean Nz will. Britian has only confirmed an order for 9 P8,no order for Triton.
Our govt may even find resistance for operating drones in our airspace, from the public,and other political parties. And im surprised that no supplimentary MPA capability is mentioned in our DWP.
Our govt may even find resistance for operating drones in our airspace, from the public,and other political parties. And im surprised that no supplimentary MPA capability is mentioned in our DWP.
No order from the UK yet. However, I cannot see them not taking full advantage of the investment into the P-8A without Triton and how significant it is in the whole ISR / FVEY schemata. Australia opted for P-8 first then after thorough investigation followed up with Triton. The UK will do the same.
The NZ consideration around the use of a UAS for maritime ISR began to be scoped even before DWP10. The current and both former DefMins have raised it publicly. Again in the NZ context is more likely than not. We are investing in WGS, DCSS, SBN, four P-8A's are seemingly highly likely, FYES membership, 4th largest EEZ with significant strategic interests in the South Pacific and Antarctica, a well signalled intention to invest considerable spending in this area. Without naming platforms Pg45 of the DWP is very clear in its intentions. Expanded upon on p47-48. In fact 3 of Big Jerry's 5 key points in his introduction focus on the realm of ISR.
Triton maybe 10 years away but when one looks at the strategic challenges ahead and the ISR components already put place by that time - and if P-8A likely (I see no contextual alternative) there is an inevitability to this. Any radical political departure will only be short lived. Only one party the Greens will have problems with it but they are never likely to be the Government solely by themselves.
The NZ public has moved on from the 90's, unlike then they now actually recognise the global threats and views on them are more robustly pro defence. In the early 2000's labour spun 'an extra $3B over 10 years' - last month Big Jerry was spinning '$20B over 15 years' and stuff all negative reaction from the wider media expect for a couple of very Green leaning bloggers whom the majority of the public has thankfully forgotten about.
I agree with your summing up of the rise in the standing, both politically and with the public of defence in general, but for the politicians to agree to adding a extra capability to defence 10 years down the track is unlikely, unless there is some political advantage to do so. they will find every excuse not to unless there is votes in it. Just look at the Auckland housing question to see how decisive they are not when it is not already in their agenda.