Royal New Zealand Air Force

[40 deg south]

In light of the essential and desirable attributes as registered in the FAMC RFI and with a view to the fiscal leverage of a commercial ‘package’ coming from a sole manufacturer, one possible solution from Airbus could be the A400M in the ‘tactical’ role along with the A321neoLR P2F in the ‘strategic’ role.

As noted previously in DT discussions Airbus are offering the A321 Neo LR from 2019 to harvest the B757F replacement market and ST of Singapore have signed with Airbus to develop the P2F variant. Palletized VIP/Troop Transport is a reasonable fairly straight-forward solution.

Airbus DS have been reported to be working towards palletized ISR capabilities for the A400M to sweeten the capability spectrum and possible orders. There is also work on ISR capability going on with respect to the MRTT so that could very well translate across to the smaller A321 variant. Mind you that does not necessarily mean foregoing the P-8 - just an adjunct that specialised tier 1 capability.

It will be interesting to see what the other possible consortiums for the FAMC come up with. However as an overall 'package' offer Airbus DS should have the essentials and desirables within the RFI fairly well covered within the capability spectrum of those two aircraft types and the 5+ year timeframe.

I think Airbus can cover more of NZ's needs than any other single manufacturer.
Strategic freight - A400
Tactical freight/pax - A400/ C295
VIP - A320/321
MPA - C295

And that's not including the MRTT, should NZ govt have a sudden rush of blood to the head!

The major weakness is in Surveillance - the C295 simply doesn't have the legs of other competitors. Strapping some sensors onto an A400 sounds a bit mickey mouse, and the proposed A319 MPA died through lack of European interest. I think C295 would be an ideal second-tier MPA, but it's unclear whether that is a capability NZ wants/can afford.

If NZ opts to go down the path of buying/leasing a civilian airliner for VIP/personnel transport, the fact that AirNZ has moved to an all-Airbus narrow-body fleet must count in their favour from a support point of view.

The tricky call will be if NZ opts for P-8; would it be better to have commonality across the RNZAF fleet (between P-8 and a 737 transport), or with the major local commercial jet operator (A320/321)?

 

[40 deg south]

Here's my personal take on the four main contenders for the FAMC role.

Lockheed Martin C-130J
For
Latest iteration of the world's greatest military airlifter. Simple, strong, rugged. Faster and more economical than earlier versions. Would be an easy transition for RNZAF - fits into existing hangers, supply chain etc. Used by most NZ allies. Huge in-service fleet - costs/risks well understood. In production until mid 202s at least - will be in service for decades. Available through FMS with rock-solid support.

Against
Arguably reaching end of useful design life. Can't lift NH90, and can't transport LAVIII any useful distance. Range-limited for Antarctic operations. Not really a significant change from upgraded C-130Hs.

Conclusion
The low-risk low-ambition option. Safe but limiting.

Airbus A400M
For
Versatile - can transport strategic loads tactical distances, or tactical loads strategic distance. Can move NH90 and LAVIII. Probably capable of Antarctic ops with no PSR. In service with RAF, France, Malaysia and NATO nations. Built by major commercial aircraft producer - firm orders for approx 170 aircraft. All-new airframe, engines, avionics. Air-to-air refuelling capability.

Against
Troubled development/introduction to service. A political rather than commercial or military project. Not yet well-proven, and running costs/availability rates still unclear. Concerns over parts/support, a frequent issue for European military equipment. All-new airframe, engines, avionics!

Conclusion
If teething troubles settle down over next two years and feedback from RAF is positive, will be the one to beat. As long as price is bearable.

Kawasaki C-2
For
Japan's reputation for engineering excellence and product support. Good specification. Similar capabilities to A400 but with two well-proven civilian engines. Can presumably move NH90, LAVII and conduct Antarctic ops. High transit speed suits NZ's Pacific ops. Sale would be a major boost to NZ-Japan relationship, and a feather in cap for Japanese govt (who would want to ensure it was successful). Potential for Japan to sell/lease to other SE Asian countries as part of more assertive foreign policy.

Against
An oddity, presumably driven by national prestige and/or industrial development strategy. Japan only plans to order 40 (in small annual increments) and there are no pending international sales. Will be an orphan platform with small in-service fleet. Unproven, from a company that is not a major aircraft manufacturer. Only three (?) aircraft built, and just entering service. Running cost data presumably lacking.

Conclusion
Possibly an excellent aircraft, but highest-risk option because of stage of development and tiny planned fleet.

Kawasaki C-2 Military Transport Aircraft - Airforce Technology

Embraer KC-390
For
From Embraer, world's 3rd-largest civilian aircraft manufacturer. Excellent reputation for building products that work as planned. On paper, is slightly more capable than C-130J in lift and much faster, but uncertainly over range (or is that just me?). Cheapest option. A step up from C130H but will fit within existing infrastructure. Air-to-air refuelling capability, and surveillance capability planned. Proven civilian engine, with NZ-based overhaul facility. Includes much proven off-the-shelf technlogy. 28 firm orders from Brazil, which will almost certainly increase.A number of credible international customers (Portugal, Sweden, Chile etc) have signed letters of intent but not yet placed firm orders. Good chance of international success, based on reputation/sales of other Embraer products. International marketing/support tie-up with Boeing.

Against
Still in development and un-certified (due next year, with first customer delivery 2018). NZ/Brazil political links very weak, and Brazilian economy/gov't in turmoil. Embraer has no NZ presence. Not used by any close allies. Even fewer firm orders than C-2. Unproven - no robust running cost data.

Conclusion
May be not far enough along the development pathway to be a serious contender, but shaping to be a worthy competitor/successor to the C-130.


Note that I haven't factored in availability of production slots, as I think the information there is just too uncertain.

OK Internet - tell me where I have gone wrong!

 

[Rob c]

I think Airbus can cover more of NZ's needs than any other single manufacturer.
Strategic freight - A400
Tactical freight/pax - A400/ C295
VIP - A320/321
MPA - C295

And that's not including the MRTT, should NZ govt have a sudden rush of blood to the head!

The major weakness is in Surveillance - the C295 simply doesn't have the legs of other competitors. Strapping some sensors onto an A400 sounds a bit mickey mouse, and the proposed A319 MPA died through lack of European interest. I think C295 would be an ideal second-tier MPA, but it's unclear whether that is a capability NZ wants/can afford.

If NZ opts to go down the path of buying/leasing a civilian airliner for VIP/personnel transport, the fact that AirNZ has moved to an all-Airbus narrow-body fleet must count in their favour from a support point of view.

The tricky call will be if NZ opts for P-8; would it be better to have commonality across the RNZAF fleet (between P-8 and a 737 transport), or with the major local commercial jet operator (A320/321)?

The Direction that defence takes in regard to the total transport by should be signalled quite soon, say in the next 18 months as I would suspect we would at least have a preferred supplier by then due to the tight delivery time for the first tactical transport. We could get some signals from that, at least of the direction for the strategic transport. We cannot rule out that both roles may be covered by one aircraft type. I would note that I think that a significant proportion of the transport flying done by the C130's currently would be considered as semi strategic.
Until I get more info as to it's abilities I would not rule out the Kawasaki P! as a P3 replacement, It is difficult to find info on this aircraft apart from generalizations, The oversea's commentators simply refer to it,s abilities as similar to the P8 without going into specifics.If as I suspect it has a better runway performance than the P8 and its systems have similar abilities to the P8 then it may be considered with some favor. While I could see a back up use for some of the lash ups. eg C295/A 400 I would not like to see them as the main player in the ASW role.

 

[Rob c]

I have to disagree, the aircraft stil fits within design limits of its primary user for its intended role, it's the NZDF that has out grown the design limits of the aircraft and it's future role.

Putting aside what the RAAF may or may not replace C130 with is a big premature as if the NZG decide that they want C130 the primary user of the aircraft will still be adding to its inventory untill the mid 2020, so the aircraft would still be supported untill the replacement is due.

B52 is still flying even being succeeded by two generation's of strategic bombers, it might be an old design but it's still relevant.

Further to what I said previously, I have no dout that the C130 would be supported for a long time into the future, What I was saying was that any operation of the c130 J by us and the RAAF as a common platform would be relatively short lived. You correctly said that the C130 can still do the job it was designed to do , but the same could be said of the DC3. I believe that it is time ti move on to better things.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

40 Deg South I believe your comments are bang on regarding all the players. One point I believe you overlooked as a positive for the KC390 is its alignment with Boeing for worldwide support. I believe this factor will place this aircraft in a very strong position to supplant the Lockheed dominance in tactical and heavy transport aircraft that they have held. The need for many air forces to replace cost effectively legacy C130 and Russian transports will see KC390 sales soar.

Safe and without any change needed C130J would be the pollies likely choice. A realistic appraisal by Defence should see the limitations of European kit used by Aus and Canada for example.

I have stated previously my personal choices but from a purely government look I think a fleet of four P8, 6 KC 390 and two B737 type is likely all supported via Boeing. The extra KC390 being made possible by the lower purchase cost compared to the C130J. It's ability to do A2A as part of its design is a huge plus for the P8 and its speed allows it to work seamlessly with the P8.

The strategic lift doesn't get solved for outsize loads with this split. Unless the government can be swayed,but given the C17 debacle, I don't see them stepping up to C2 even though I think it will be a fine aircraft.

Rob C I also agree that a P1 / C2 combination would be a huge feather in the caps of both governments. The back room must play a part in these types of decisions and as such this must be a serious possibility. If Boeing were to become involved here as well then it would surely help all parties.

 

[chis73]

Until I get more info as to it's abilities I would not rule out the Kawasaki P! as a P3 replacement, It is difficult to find info on this aircraft apart from generalizations, The oversea's commentators simply refer to it,s abilities as similar to the P8 without going into specifics.If as I suspect it has a better runway performance than the P8 and its systems have similar abilities to the P8 then it may be considered with some favor.

I found a neat youtube video (from the improbably named Johnny Bonkers) of P-1, P-3 & P-8 take-off runs from RIAT this year. Link here. The runway at Fairford is just under 10000ft. From the video, even the RAF E-3 looked to best the P-8, and the P-3 outdid everyone else. The P-1s were on their way direct to Djibouti I think, so probably carrying substantial fuel. The comparison is entirely dependent on fuel loads and all-up weight of course, but nevertheless interesting. Whenuapai's longest runway is 6665ft (the other is only 5187ft); it certainly looked like the P-8 had less than 5000ft remaining at Fairford, so it looks marginal for Whenuapai.

I don't think whether the Australians have the C-130J in 20 years time or not is a great factor in our decision. Maybe it could allow us to use their simulator (assuming they have one) for a while, but we don't use their logistics support currently anyway. With new C-130J production still happening eg. recent orders from France, 17 from USAF last year) there is unlikely to be problems with support. There is some evidence that nations are finding the A400M too big for tactical roles (eg. UK decision to retain their C-130s, interest from Germany in the C-130J (link)). I would hate to see the A400M (or the C-2) chosen as the only tactical transport (to my mind it fits better as the Strategic option).

KC-390 is going to struggle to meet the timeframe.

The C295 will struggle to meet the criteria I think. Especially the operation in austere conditions. It doesn't have a APU, just a propeller brake on the port engine, so it would have difficulty getting going again if it had to shut down it's engines in some remote spot. I like it as a 2nd tier MPA, where any transport ability it can bring is strictly a bonus.

The annoying criterion for me is the decison to make VIP ability Essential for the Strategic transport. Really? Should have been Desirable in my opinion. Predictable though. Can't see John Key (or any future PM) wanting to arrive in a cargo plane, especially an A400M (your plane has propellers. How frightfully quaint!).

 

[htbrst]

40 Deg South I believe your comments are bang on regarding all the players. One point I believe you overlooked as a positive for the KC390 is its alignment with Boeing for worldwide support.

Another factor along similar lines favouring the KC-390 (and at a stretch a second hand A320) is the Christchurch engine centre in NZ's South Island - a MRO centre for the V2500 engines powering the KC-390.

An offer that put some work through that facility, including refurbishing engines for other KC-390 customers now that V2500 production is winding down now that it has been replaced on the NEO A320's could be looked on favourably.

 

[Rob c]

I found a neat youtube video (from the improbably named Johnny Bonkers) of P-1, P-3 & P-8 take-off runs from RIAT this year. Link here. The runway at Fairford is just under 10000ft. From the video, even the RAF E-3 looked to best the P-8, and the P-3 outdid everyone else. The P-1s were on their way direct to Djibouti I think, so probably carrying substantial fuel. The comparison is entirely dependent on fuel loads and all-up weight of course, but nevertheless interesting. Whenuapai's longest runway is 6665ft (the other is only 5187ft); it certainly looked like the P-8 had less than 5000ft remaining at Fairford, so it looks marginal for Whenuapai.

I don't think whether the Australians have the C-130J in 20 years time or not is a great factor in our decision. Maybe it could allow us to use their simulator (assuming they have one) for a while, but we don't use their logistics support currently anyway. With new C-130J production still happening eg. recent orders from France, 17 from USAF last year) there is unlikely to be problems with support. There is some evidence that nations are finding the A400M too big for tactical roles (eg. UK decision to retain their C-130s, interest from Germany in the C-130J (link)). I would hate to see the A400M (or the C-2) chosen as the only tactical transport (to my mind it fits better as the Strategic option).

KC-390 is going to struggle to meet the timeframe.

The C295 will struggle to meet the criteria I think. Especially the operation in austere conditions. It doesn't have a APU, just a propeller brake on the port engine, so it would have difficulty getting going again if it had to shut down it's engines in some remote spot. I like it as a 2nd tier MPA, where any transport ability it can bring is strictly a bonus.

The annoying criterion for me is the decison to make VIP ability Essential for the Strategic transport. Really? Should have been Desirable in my opinion. Predictable though. Can't see John Key (or any future PM) wanting to arrive in a cargo plane, especially an A400M (your plane has propellers. How frightfully quaint!).

The video on the P9/E3/P1/P3 takeoff performance is very enlightening an while I thought that the P1 Would be better than the P8, the video shows it to be substantially better. I got the impresson when refering to the runway markers that it it used about 750 ft more than the P3 and between 3000-3500 less than the P8. What could stand in its way are the questions regarding it's abilities, price and politics. A little note I noticed is that should it lose an engine it is designed to continue on and complete the mission on 3 engines and not have to abort.

 

[ngatimozart]

The video on the P9/E3/P1/P3 takeoff performance is very enlightening an while I thought that the P1 Would be better than the P8, the video shows it to be substantially better. I got the impresson when refering to the runway markers that it it used about 750 ft more than the P3 and between 3000-3500 less than the P8. What could stand in its way are the questions regarding it's abilities, price and politics. A little note I noticed is that should it lose an engine it is designed to continue on and complete the mission on 3 engines and not have to abort.

Remember whilst judging the P8s take off attributes against other aircraft using video that it is still IOC only so it will have restrictions on it. Also did it start its take off run at the same place as the other aircraft? There are some variables that need to be taken into account that are not necessarily obvious. This might sound pedantic, but it cannot be ignored (that's the scientist in me coming out ).

I think this whole discussion on its take off performance is really a distraction and will have little bearing on whether or not it's procured. Such things will have been assessed but unless it uses humongously long metres to take off at its MTOW, then it is really a non issue. What will be far more important is the capabilities it offers, how it fits in with our CONOPS, the synergies with our 5i's partners and how much treasure that the pollies have to fork over for it.

 

[Rob c]

Remember whilst judging the P8s take off attributes against other aircraft using video that it is still IOC only so it will have restrictions on it. Also did it start its take off run at the same place as the other aircraft? There are some variables that need to be taken into account that are not necessarily obvious. This might sound pedantic, but it cannot be ignored (that's the scientist in me coming out ).

I think this whole discussion on its take off performance is really a distraction and will have little bearing on whether or not it's procured. Such things will have been assessed but unless it uses humongously long metres to take off at its MTOW, then it is really a non issue. What will be far more important is the capabilities it offers, how it fits in with our CONOPS, the synergies with our 5i's partners and how much treasure that the pollies have to fork over for it.

Totally agree. How ever I always expected the P1 's takeoff to be shorter due to its lower wing loading and better power to weight ratio and if the destination for the P1 is correct then it would have been heavy too. The P8's takeoff performance seen was in line with that of a B737-900. The option of possibly operating from 2 sites I think was included in the RFI to ensure the P8 was kept in the running and as I stated before I think the 2 sites would be WH and AKI. this would lead to higher operating cost due to the need to transfer aircraft and runway fee,s etc. I am sure that before the RFI's were written there would have been informal discussions with the possible contenders regarding points like this and delivery dates etc for both categories and a view of what aircraft the RNZAF wanted formed. To this end I would say that before the pollies get involved the only serious contenders would be the P8 and the P1 with the P8 slightly ahead because the RAAF are getting them.

 

[40 deg south]

Thanks for the positive feedback, guys. Always good to spark some discussion.

A few points in response:

I briefly mentioned the Embraer/Boeing tie-up over KC-390, but don't know any details. Is Boeing the sales/service agent for all international sales? Can prospective customers go straight to the source? More info welcome.

One of the Cab papers released in the C-17 info dump referred to another 'mid-point re-balancing review' in 2018 providing updated costings on aircraft. If that time-line is still in place, it will be a tight squeeze between ordering (mid-2018?) and initial delivery (Feb 2020). I'm not sure what is driving that 2020 date - possibly a desire to get the transport fleet well bedded in before moving on to surveillance? Alternatively, the 2020 delivery date could be allowed to slip, which has been the case with most recent procurement decisions.

I thought about covering the surveillance options, but the post was already very long. Briefly, I think the P-8 will be very hard to beat, as it is used by US/UK and Aust. It will also have a large global fleet (200 for USN alone, I think), making upgrading/sustainment more feasible. The ability to seamlessly share information with allies flying the same platform would be a big bonus.

The P-1, meanwhile, actually has a much bigger orderbook that the C-2. Japan flies about 90 P-3Cs, and I understand they are planning a roughly one-for-one replacement. But any upgrades will be solely Japan-focused, and I'm unsure if Japan has expressed the interest to add overland surveillance and other capabilities that the US has floated for P-8. I suspect a very capable platform, but maybe too tailored to Japan's specific interest to suit others?

I guess time will tell.

 

[ngatimozart]

Totally agree. How ever I always expected the P1 's takeoff to be shorter due to its lower wing loading and better power to weight ratio and if the destination for the P1 is correct then it would have been heavy too. The P8's takeoff performance seen was in line with that of a B737-900. The option of possibly operating from 2 sites I think was included in the RFI to ensure the P8 was kept in the running and as I stated before I think the 2 sites would be WH and AKI. this would lead to higher operating cost due to the need to transfer aircraft and runway fee,s etc. I am sure that before the RFI's were written there would have been informal discussions with the possible contenders regarding points like this and delivery dates etc for both categories and a view of what aircraft the RNZAF wanted formed. To this end I would say that before the pollies get involved the only serious contenders would be the P8 and the P1 with the P8 slightly ahead because the RAAF are getting them.

Rob you are presuming that the second location for the FASC will be Mangere (AIA - Auckland International Airport). There is nothing to say that at all. It could be OH just as easily. All the facilities are there. Also just a housekeeping point, the two letter code for Whenuapai is WP, as in the International Aviation Code for it is NZWP. From memory it was WP when I was in the mob too.

• Wigram - WG
• Woodbourne - WB
• Shelly Bay - SB
• Ohakea - OH
• Te Rapa - TR
• Hobsonville - HB
• Whenuapai - WP

Thanks for the positive feedback, guys. Always good to spark some discussion.

A few points in response:

I briefly mentioned the Embraer/Boeing tie-up over KC-390, but don't know any details. Is Boeing the sales/service agent for all international sales? Can prospective customers go straight to the source? More info welcome.

Embraer, Boeing Hope KC-390 Will Have Long Payout | DefenseNews

One of the Cab papers released in the C-17 info dump referred to another 'mid-point re-balancing review' in 2018 providing updated costings on aircraft. If that time-line is still in place, it will be a tight squeeze between ordering (mid-2018?) and initial delivery (Feb 2020). I'm not sure what is driving that 2020 date - possibly a desire to get the transport fleet well bedded in before moving on to surveillance? Alternatively, the 2020 delivery date could be allowed to slip, which has been the case with most recent procurement decisions.

I thought about covering the surveillance options, but the post was already very long. Briefly, I think the P-8 will be very hard to beat, as it is used by US/UK and Aust. It will also have a large global fleet (200 for USN alone, I think), making upgrading/sustainment more feasible. The ability to seamlessly share information with allies flying the same platform would be a big bonus.

The P-1, meanwhile, actually has a much bigger orderbook that the C-2. Japan flies about 90 P-3Cs, and I understand they are planning a roughly one-for-one replacement. But any upgrades will be solely Japan-focused, and I'm unsure if Japan has expressed the interest to add overland surveillance and other capabilities that the US has floated for P-8. I suspect a very capable platform, but maybe too tailored to Japan's specific interest to suit others?

I guess time will tell.

I remember reading somewhere a while back that the P1 may not have as much cabin space as the B737-800 / P8 so that may not allow for a real increase in hardware being included in the cabin and internally within the aircraft. Can't remember where I saw it though, bugger. The other thing would with the P1 is that it will cost more to operate, just based on 4 engines vs 2. Also the ISR EW etc., fit out that the NZG are after may not be offered in the P1 as standard, whereas it is in the P8. Those overland ISR capabilities for the P8 are being floated by the US, they will be part of the P8 fit out. It's just that currently the USN doesn't fully use them as such yet because the US has other platforms that can undertake those taskings.

 

[chis73]

Just for reference: current orders

P-8:
117 for USN (some sources say 122)
12 for RAAF (maybe eventually 15 according to DWP16)
12 for India (with plans on another 12)
9 for RAF
-------------
Total: 150

P-1:
70 for JMSDF (33 ordered so far)
-------------
Total: 70

One point about ISR/EW capability: can NZ afford to be a player in this field? I doubt we could keep up with the rapid advances in technology. Look at how our P-3's ASW kit failed to keep up. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the upgrades that have just been approved are some 2nd hand / surplus equipment from retired USN P-3Cs. $36m for 6 aircraft seems awfully low.

 

[Rob c]

Rob you are presuming that the second location for the FASC will be Mangere (AIA - Auckland International Airport). There is nothing to say that at all. It could be OH just as easily. All the facilities are there. Also just a housekeeping point, the two letter code for Whenuapai is WP, as in the International Aviation Code for it is NZWP. From memory it was WP when I was in the mob too.

• Wigram - WG
• Woodbourne - WB
• Shelly Bay - SB
• Ohakea - OH
• Te Rapa - TR
• Hobsonville - HB
• Whenuapai - WP

Embraer, Boeing Hope KC-390 Will Have Long Payout | DefenseNews

I remember reading somewhere a while back that the P1 may not have as much cabin space as the B737-800 / P8 so that may not allow for a real increase in hardware being included in the cabin and internally within the aircraft. Can't remember where I saw it though, bugger. The other thing would with the P1 is that it will cost more to operate, just based on 4 engines vs 2. Also the ISR EW etc., fit out that the NZG are after may not be offered in the P1 as standard, whereas it is in the P8. Those overland ISR capabilities for the P8 are being floated by the US, they will be part of the P8 fit out. It's just that currently the USN doesn't fully use them as such yet because the US has other platforms that can undertake those taskings.

Agree that AIA is just a guess but it and CH are our only airfields that can take a fully loaded B737-900 on take off run length and it would save 1 hour 20 min in extra transit time to and from Oh to their main operating area, it would make sense. Also OH is not long enough for a max weight take off, which would further restrict the the range. Combine this with the extra transit time and you have quite a significant restriction in the aircraft's use . The extra cost of the P1's 4 engines would be an extremely small part of running costs as modern engines are very reliable and only need recon's after a very large amount of flying hours. ( looking up some airline engines I see wing removal hours of between 30000 and 50000 hrs and no I have not added to many zeros, Fifty thousand is the top figure.). In the case of the CFM 56 fitted to the P8 the in flight incident rate is one every 333000 hrs. You are correct in regard to the capabilities of the P1 as we simply don't know enough of what it can do to make an informed decision. I don't think cabin size is an issue as modern electronics tend to shrink in size over a period of time and with development
The take off distances I have used when looking at this problem are for a B737-900, which is slightly lighter than the P8.

 

[halogen]

Just for reference: current orders
Look at how our P-3's ASW kit failed to keep up. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the upgrades that have just been approved are some 2nd hand / surplus equipment from retired USN P-3Cs. $36m for 6 aircraft seems awfully low.

This link may be of interest:
(can't post links yet... for a write up try google searching: diplomat p3 orion nz)

The upgrade essentially involves replacing the processing hardware/software of the system and is of the standard of the current equipment installed on the P-8. The cost does seem to be competitive however the system is new.

 

[ngatimozart]

Agree that AIA is just a guess but it and CH are our only airfields that can take a fully loaded B737-900 on take off run length and it would save 1 hour 20 min in extra transit time to and from Oh to their main operating area, it would make sense. Also OH is not long enough for a max weight take off, which would further restrict the the range. Combine this with the extra transit time and you have quite a significant restriction in the aircraft's use . The extra cost of the P1's 4 engines would be an extremely small part of running costs as modern engines are very reliable and only need recon's after a very large amount of flying hours. ( looking up some airline engines I see wing removal hours of between 30000 and 50000 hrs and no I have not added to many zeros, Fifty thousand is the top figure.). In the case of the CFM 56 fitted to the P8 the in flight incident rate is one every 333000 hrs. You are correct in regard to the capabilities of the P1 as we simply don't know enough of what it can do to make an informed decision. I don't think cabin size is an issue as modern electronics tend to shrink in size over a period of time and with development
The take off distances I have used when looking at this problem are for a B737-900, which is slightly lighter than the P8.

Why would it take 1hr 20min for a B737-8 or 9 to fly from WP to OH or reverse? Are you sure you are not confusing the flight times with the C47 Dakota or B170 Bristol Frightener - that thing with the built in head wind, a.k.a., 20,000 rivets flying in very loose formation. Flight time from AKL (Auckland) - CHC (Christchurch) in a B737-400 / B737-800 / A320 is generally 1hr 20min and that's with Air NZ, QANTAS* or Virgin Pacific*. I used to do the CHC - AKL - CHC trip quite a bit from 1999 - 2011.

4 engines Vs 2 Engines: 4 engines do have a significant impact on the operating costs just because of the extra fuel burnt. Yes, the CFM engines have twice the thrust of the P1's IHI Corporation F7 engine, but also the P1 MTOW is 6 tonne less than the P8 so my question is why use 4 small turbofans when two turbofans would suffice. Yes, I know because they believe they can operate on 3 engines. The engines are Japanese, not mass produced commercial ones for the airline industry, so they will be more expensive in the long run because you will have limited runs for them. However I do note that the IHI Corporation F7 engine uses FADEC.

* when they were flying domestically here.

 

[chis73]

This link may be of interest:
(can't post links yet... for a write up try google searching: diplomat p3 orion nz)

The upgrade essentially involves replacing the processing hardware/software of the system and is of the standard of the current equipment installed on the P-8. The cost does seem to be competitive however the system is new.

Welcome halogen,

Here's the link
http://thediplomat.com/2016/08/new-zealand-to-upgrade-anti-submarine-warfare-capability/

I guess it depends on how you read the article. While what it says is true, as far as I am aware, the P-8 currently has the "baseline" ASW systems (ie. taken from the P-3C), soon to be replaced in the Increment 3 upgrade. So it's possible we are both right.

 

[ngatimozart]

One point about ISR/EW capability: can NZ afford to be a player in this field? I doubt we could keep up with the rapid advances in technology. Look at how our P-3's ASW kit failed to keep up. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the upgrades that have just been approved are some 2nd hand / surplus equipment from retired USN P-3Cs. $36m for 6 aircraft seems awfully low.

The NZG want the ISR capability and have expressed a desire for the EW capability so yes they will include it. The current P3K2 has overland ISR capability.

 

[Rob c]

Why would it take 1hr 20min for a B737-8 or 9 to fly from WP to OH or reverse? Are you sure you are not confusing the flight times with the C47 Dakota or B170 Bristol Frightener - that thing with the built in head wind, a.k.a., 20,000 rivets flying in very loose formation. Flight time from AKL (Auckland) - CHC (Christchurch) in a B737-400 / B737-800 / A320 is generally 1hr 20min and that's with Air NZ, QANTAS* or Virgin Pacific*. I used to do the CHC - AKL - CHC trip quite a bit from 1999 - 2011.

4 engines Vs 2 Engines: 4 engines do have a significant impact on the operating costs just because of the extra fuel burnt. Yes, the CFM engines have twice the thrust of the P1's IHI Corporation F7 engine, but also the P1 MTOW is 6 tonne less than the P8 so my question is why use 4 small turbofans when two turbofans would suffice. Yes, I know because they believe they can operate on 3 engines. The engines are Japanese, not mass produced commercial ones for the airline industry, so they will be more expensive in the long run because you will have limited runs for them. However I do note that the IHI Corporation F7 engine uses FADEC.

* when they were flying domestically here.

The Flight time is for the there and back flight as any flight north would require the aircraft (I did say to and from)to go there and back and was taken from the flight time calculator for a speed of 500mph but with one landing and one take off deducted plus an additional 10 min deducted because of simplified air traffic control. Jet engine fuel usage is measured as weight of fuel used per hour per unit of thrust so the number of engines has nothing to do with the amount of fuel used, it is all about the amount of thrust required to propel the aircraft. also the higher the bypass ratio of an engine usually equates to a lower fuel consumption. In this case the bypass ratio of the engines fitted. For the engines fitted to the P8 this is a little over 5 to 1 and the engines in the P1 are more modern and are at over 8 to 1, while I have yet to find a SFC for these engines the figures available would suggest that they are more fuel efficient , being of a more modern design and a higher bypass ratio. As I said the number of engines are irrelevant when it comes to fuel burn it is all in the SFC and the amount of thrust required to do the job. This info was all part of my Job in the air force. Also jet engine life is not fixed but monitored by chemical analyst of the engine fluids and reference to the engine performance criteria such as the EPR (engine pressure ratio ) which indicates the efficiency of the engine. Unlike car engines jet engines produce their rated power for the life of the engine, what changes is the RPM at which this occurs When new the rated power may occur at 97% RPM and when this figure rises to say 102% the engine will be pulled. This of course varies for different types of engines. .

 

[swerve]

Thanks for the positive feedback, guys. Always good to spark some discussion.

A few points in response:

I briefly mentioned the Embraer/Boeing tie-up over KC-390, but don't know any details. Is Boeing the sales/service agent for all international sales? Can prospective customers go straight to the source? More info welcome..

According to this Boeing press release, "Embraer will provide the aircraft while Boeing will be responsible for in-service support".