This is a podcast on the recent 5 Sqn 75th anniversary & P3 50th anniversary celebration. Go to the 1hr 57 mark where the Sqn Maintenance Flight Commander discusses maintenance of the P3K2.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
Since the K2 upgrade avionics spares in particular have been a major headache. Whoever's job it was to figure out how many parts PLUS spares the RNZAF needed screwed up big time and the issue has been known for years and not resolved.
With avionics there are obsolescence issues and there should have been a plan in place from the get go to address them (i.e gradual upgrades). Naturally what actually has happened is stuff is only getting looked at now.
With respect to taking parts from other aircraft to service flying aircraft (cannibalising), this occurs with aircraft on ILM servicing as well as other non-flying aircraft in the hangar, not just DLM at Safe Air. At one point an aircraft on ILM had more than 50 cannibalisations, most of which were avionics parts.
There are some sub-components that are so obsolete they are no longer produced, and constant failure of those particular components has meant the number has serviceable parts in the pool has dropped significantly.
With avionics there are obsolescence issues and there should have been a plan in place from the get go to address them (i.e gradual upgrades). Naturally what actually has happened is stuff is only getting looked at now.
With respect to taking parts from other aircraft to service flying aircraft (cannibalising), this occurs with aircraft on ILM servicing as well as other non-flying aircraft in the hangar, not just DLM at Safe Air. At one point an aircraft on ILM had more than 50 cannibalisations, most of which were avionics parts.
There are some sub-components that are so obsolete they are no longer produced, and constant failure of those particular components has meant the number has serviceable parts in the pool has dropped significantly.
I thought this might be the problem, and I think the blame rests squarely on the NZ Government's miserably tight defence budget which NZD has to work with,which in regard to parts means that until it was needed yesterday you cannot have it. Probably based on the commercial "Just in time delivery" which usually actually means "Just too late".
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Yes, just listened to that thanks, alarmed to find flight hrs available has been cut noticably every yr as stated, is there provisions in the budget to address this i wonder?
I suspect that this may be a clinical ploy by the government so to enable them to get away with replacing the 6 P3 k2 with only 4 replacements.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Yeah, but obviously we still have commitment to our defence partners out there, so if thats the case, it would mean prioritising offshore missions over domestic ones,going against all the platitudes made by Gerry Brownlee and the Defence whitepaper, about its local commitments.Surely drones would be included in a P8 deal? Although, would that mean Triton? not cheap. Wait and see i suppose.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Rob c I too believe that the P1 is an option that needs to be seriously reviewed. As you noted the high altitude prosecution of targets as used by the P8 is opposite to the existing P3 and P1 way of low and slow if needed. Is the change in procedures, weapons and the added component of BAMS a needed and cost effective need of the NZDF?
The P1 is more in line with NZ operations and transition from the P3 would just require aircraft familiarization not the whole process. I personally believe that's too much of a change for any benefits.
The P1 is more in line with NZ operations and transition from the P3 would just require aircraft familiarization not the whole process. I personally believe that's too much of a change for any benefits.
The P8 is not designed or meant to operate the way the P3s or Sunderlands have. Just as the P3B was a big step up and sea change in ops and methodologies from the Sunderlands so the P8 is from the P3K2. Low and slow may not be needed nor actually desirable anymore with SL-SAM capability being added to subs, so if you come in low and slow you may likely eat a SAM. I would suggest that people read this The Arrival of a Maritime-Domain Awareness Strike Capability: The Impact of the P-8/Triton Dyad. The title says it all and it's no longer just about ASW and ASuW but about Domain Awareness; how to access it, manage it and exploit it. The P1 does not have this capability to anywhere near the extent that the P8 does. It's the same concept that is used in the C5ISR aspects of the F35 which make that aircraft far more than just an ordinance truck that happens to have some LO capabilities. The C5ISR aspects far outweigh the F35s ability to drop bombs, fire missiles or shoot at the bad guys. That's what a lot of people don't understand. The same goes for the P8.
Then think about the cost effectiveness. Less platforms are needed to cover a given area and NZ has operated for decades with the absolute minimum number of platforms for the size its AO.
Last edited:
I believe that the P8 is the leading contender but what the airforce really wants and the COST will be a deciding factor. That is why I am not writing off the P 1 or for that matter the E190 proposal . On the subject of SAM's I don't think anyone is seriously contemplating fitting them to subs, as they contradict all normal submarine philosophies, in that they require the sub to be near the surface for them to detect their target and achieve targeting results, either by periscope/radar mast breaking the surface, or a buoy carrying out the same functions, which means they are very vulnerable to detection and attack. On firing a SAM a submarine has announced to the world , exactly were it is. This goes against the whole concept of stealth that the sub relies on to achieve it's mission.
SL-SAMs are already being fitted to some subs. The whole point of them is to get rid of the annoyance in the air above and then clear datum. They haven't been able to do that until now.
The FASC is a national strategic asset in the governments eyes and part of the $20 billion is set aside for that. When the numbers are done there is quite a bit of slack in that money and the acquisition of what they have signalled so far takes up maybe 60 - 70% of it. Hence cost is not the main driver. The E190 MPA is like the Sea Hercules - a paper aircraft and the NZG will not touch one of those. That has been made clear already by them. Secondly they clearly state in the FASC RFI that they prefer an aircraft that is already in service with our major allies - them being Australia, Canada, UK & US. Out of those four, three are or will be operating the P8. Regarding costs the P8 is around NZ$50 million cheaper than the P1 to acquire.
Two points to ponder are, Unless the sub is shallow or the aircraft is in a final attack mode and using active sonabuoys the sub will have no idea that an aircraft is present Though a SL SAM could be useful in shallow areas such as the baltic. What subs are being fitted with them? and while the flyaway cost of a P8 may be cheaper. is the program cheaper with the add ons (drones and special delivery systems ) needed to make the P8 viable. It is interesting to note that BAE ( America) is developing a MAD drone for the P8, so you may need two types of drone. http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2015/01/bae-subhunting-drone.html
I suspect that to have an airframe with a design specification to fly 1000fh p.a versus a platform that struggles to see 400fh p.a in employment contexts is indeed a clinical ploy by the government which is very sensible. Replacing the 2500 hour allocation on the P-3K2 fleet with potentially 4000 hours using P-8A and with it the dramatic difference in maritime domain awareness, plus the intention that two of the future leased KingAirs in the MEPT/AWOT role will be wired......
My understanding of the the P3 k2 lower hours, is that there are 2 main causes and they are budgetary and avionics related and the avionics to a large extent being parts related, which is again budgetary related. The airframe/engine area being generally reliable as it always has been. The P3 systems are very similar in design to the C130 and are just as reliable as are the engines which are almost the same. I spent some years working on both types some years ago. The plus side for the P8 is that it flies at high altitude and because of this will suffer far less fatigue in it's operation than a low flying type operation.
Last edited by a moderator:
P8 presents a number of challenges but the reality is the P1 is operated solely by a non Five Eyes, non native English speaking country who don't share the same airworthiness philosophies and principles.
Think about the logistics of being one of or the first operator of a Japanese aircraft. With an Air Force of about 2500 people we simply don't have the resources to be guinea pigs for an entire aircraft like that. It's about as likely as buying a Brazilian replacement for the Hercules.
Last edited by a moderator:
That is incorrect and uncalled for. They are not the PRC or others. The Japanese aircraft industry build to the same stringent standards as western aircraft manufacturers.
The difference between a P1 acquisition and a KC390 acquisition is that Boeing undertake the global support sales and service for the KC390.
There's a difference between building a plane and then testing and operating it.
They design it, they build it, they can do what they want with it. Look how long it took for the A109s and NH90s to become operational for the RNZAF despite being in service with many other countries for many years.
Subs operate in littoral waters globally plus SSKs have to snort regularly to recharge their batteries. AIP appears to be somewhat over rated and apparently not achieving the desired results. The French are developing the system for subs. the Germans are also doing the same for their Type 212 U boats. I have also read that the PLAN are working along these lines as well. From what I understand submerged subs can hear low flying aircraft to a certain degree.
Whilst MAD is a tool for sensing subs, it can be neutralised or mitigated to a certain degree. The P8 does come with a tool kit but you don't take a knife to a gun fight and regardless of what is bought to replace the Orions weapons and sensors will have to be upgraded and replaced. The P8 is a system of systems that operate almost seamlessly within a larger system. That's its advantage and the long term advantage of the Tritons is that they keep costs down because you don't have to pay for two full crews for each them, just a small group of operators who don't qualify for flight pay.
The acquisition of the Tritons negates acquisition of extra manned aircraft for maritime surveillance to achieve the same policy results, so yes over the life of the capability it is significantly cheaper.kiwipatriot69
Active Member
id say that's fairly self explanatory. Cost of training a pilot and aircrew , not just paying them at that rank, thats one of the reasons why we are seeing more automation of our ships and planes. Millions of dollars in training and salaries saved. My main concern is on adeqaute numbers, and how long it will take to integrate into service this new tech.
Like you say, we do have a small Airforce, military on the whole, and recruitment is an issue, automation ie drones in the case of MPA may relieve some of that burden.
Last edited by a moderator: