Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Novascotiaboy]

To be completely honest i have to question the acquisition of the P8 with its exorbitant initial cost and the ongoing costs of just four likely aircraft. As Rob C has said there will likely be other bidders offering a similar level of capability. Does NZ need to play in this sandbox? Can a fleet of G6000 with a swordfish package and predators do the job almost as good but for far less dollars?

If SLOC control is whats desired this should suit the need. Even C295 MPA's can provide this service. I look at P8 like I do F35, do all allied nations need this capability. Cannot tier 2 nations not equip themselves for tier 2 threats? I am by far an expert but to me the technology is outpacing most nations abilities to afford the platforms in sufficient numbers to make a difference.

A realistic threat analysis not a "look at me, I have the same toy as you" mentality of very expensive toys just because we can attitude i think is needed.

As far as SL SAM is concerned these have been around for more than four decades with Israel deploying a quad cluster of blowpipe SAM's on their subs albeit with limited success. This was the reason for the blowpipes development.

 

[MrConservative]

At JAX the philosophy underpinning the P-8A/Triton is an interchangeable family of combat crews between platforms as part of a common Maritime Domain Awareness and Maritime Combat Culture.

 

[vonnoobie]

In regards to SL-SAM's (or SLAAM's if you prefer) the German's have/are developing IDAS which has been fired from both the German Type 212 submarines and recently fired it from the Norwegian Ula class submarine.

It is actually a very easy system to intergrate as it doesnt require any special launch tubes. It is actually like the ESSM's in which 4 of them are quad packed into a magazine which can then be loaded into the torpedo tube like any standard torpedo.

DCNS is even developing there own version's with both a torpedo tube launched option and one based on a retractable mast.

For nuclear submarines they likely wont mean much but for conventional submarines which spend the majority of there life in shallow water environments it is a highly valuable asset, I would like to see us working with either TKMS or DCNS to have such an asset inegrated into our future submarines from the get go.

 

[ngatimozart]

The context of the post to me suggests aircrew receive extra (flight) pay by dint of being aircrew, which is incorrect.

You are right though, there is a lot of money to be saved. Swings and roundabouts really.

When I was in the mob, IIRC aircrew on flying duty got a flight allowance. same as seagoing personnel received seagoing allowance and 5c a day grog money if they were entitled to the daily rum tot but didn't partake.

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.

Yes, numbers are important and when Big Gerry says four P8 / P1 I am somewhat concerned. I would think that five P8 and three MQ4C Triton BAMS would be a better mix. It's just that four leaves little room for redundancy, especially if something goes pear shaped. With five you can have two fully serviceable at all times; with four you can have one and possibly a second available. Yes, the Triton has good capabilities but it is not the be all to end all and whilst it could conduct a SAR for example, it cannot drop a lift rafts or other materials if required.

Regarding the integration, judging by the NH90 introduction into service, I would think that two - three years would be a reasonable time period to achieve FOC. The USN, RAAF & RAF will have achieved their FOC with the type by then so any bugs will have been sorted out and clear pathways defined. Acquiring through FMS has its advantages and the P8 has its synergies with the USN, enabling us to access their fleet train for sustainment when we need to. That we wouldn't be able to do with the P1 or any other platform. The FMS approach is also one of the main reasons why I have gone away from Euro gear. It's just easier to sustain gear when the US is using it. The Kaman SH-2G(NZ) Seasprite maintenance fiasco was a combination of not enough helos, limited spares held by NZDF and poor service from Kaman.

 

[vonnoobie]

To be completely honest i have to question the acquisition of the P8 with its exorbitant initial cost and the ongoing costs of just four likely aircraft. As Rob C has said there will likely be other bidders offering a similar level of capability. Does NZ need to play in this sandbox? Can a fleet of G6000 with a swordfish package and predators do the job almost as good but for far less dollars?

Not sure the cost will be that much cheaper if at all.

Few thing's that need to be taken into account, The fly away cost for the P-8 is currently at $125 million, The purchase price for the G6000 alone (No Swordfish package) is north of $62 million. Throw in the swordfish package and there isn't much difference in purchase cost.

The G6000 would likely be cheaper to operate but it would also likely be harder and more costly to maintain then the P-8. The G6000 being a limited use aircraft would not have the global support reach that the P-8 can tap into which being based off of a 737 can be supported almost anywhere in the world with out having to fly in specialised spares and personnel.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

The basic airframe costs maybe what you quoted Vonnoobie but a full on P8 will be US$230 million plus based upon the recent buy of five by Norway. Even at twice the airframe cost a G6000 with swordfish will be half the cost of P8. At NZ$160 million per aircraft NZ could buy six and six predator b UCAV's the same spec as the UK for NZ$1.5 billion plus spares and support thru life. Both armed and both capable of SAR drop.

Four aircraft for the same amount just doesn't make sense to me just to say we are part of the 5i's club. I highly doubt it will be all 5 of the eyes equipped with P8 as Canada won't be stumping for P8.

 

[Rob c]

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.

Agree with you second para the question will be will the Government?, They have not always given defence a decent gun for the gun fight. In regard to the SL SAM I note that the German system is mainly for defence against helicopters which makes sense as you are far more likely to be aware of a helicopter than a patrol aircraft as it is likely to have come from a ship and you will know of any ships in your area, also when a sub is shallow it can acoustically pick up a helicopter as well as low flying propeller driven aircraft. But unless you are already snorting you would be mad to stick a targeting system above water in the presence of ASW assets, as with the modern detection equipment available you might as well not be submerged.
In regared to the numbers I think your assessment of 5 P8s and 3 Tritons would give us reasonable coverage and effectiveness.

 

[Rob c]

The Ohakea Avenger has just flown directly over my house at low altitude then circled once before departing, probably someone having a christmassy thing nearby but a magnificent sight.

 

[MrConservative]

The basic airframe costs maybe what you quoted Vonnoobie but a full on P8 will be US$230 million plus based upon the recent buy of five by Norway. Even at twice the airframe cost a G6000 with swordfish will be half the cost of P8. At NZ$160 million per aircraft NZ could buy six and six predator b UCAV's the same spec as the UK for NZ$1.5 billion plus spares and support thru life. Both armed and both capable of SAR drop.

Four aircraft for the same amount just doesn't make sense to me just to say we are part of the 5i's club. I highly doubt it will be all 5 of the eyes equipped with P8 as Canada won't be stumping for P8.

What do you mean 'we.' Aren't you not from Nova Scotia? Why should you get upset about how much it will cost the NZ taxpayer?

The Govt and the general public in general seem to be quite comfortable with spending round $2B on a tier 1 maritime capability that a former DefMin described to me as the cornerstone capability of the NZDF.

The NZ Government have investigated this capability set thoroughly. It is not about cost (affordability has never been the issue in a strictly fiscal sense in NZ) or membership of certain security communities.

Hopefully you Canadians do stump up for it ..... eh!

 

[vonnoobie]

The basic airframe costs maybe what you quoted Vonnoobie but a full on P8 will be US$230 million plus based upon the recent buy of five by Norway. Even at twice the airframe cost a G6000 with swordfish will be half the cost of P8. At NZ$160 million per aircraft NZ could buy six and six predator b UCAV's the same spec as the UK for NZ$1.5 billion plus spares and support thru life. Both armed and both capable of SAR drop.

Four aircraft for the same amount just doesn't make sense to me just to say we are part of the 5i's club. I highly doubt it will be all 5 of the eyes equipped with P8 as Canada won't be stumping for P8.

You still have your number's back to front.

$125m get's you the P-8 in a ready made ASW capability.

$62m+ get's you a G6000 that still has to be modified. You are still looking at extra cost to acquire the various systems needed to outfit it into the Swordfish capability. Once you actually buy all the ASW equipment and modify the air craft you are looking easily north of $100 million.

The $230m a piece with the Norwegian contract get's you a lot more then just the aircraft, also included but not limited is training, support, various weapons and ground based systems etc.. Those same things would be needed wit any G6000 purchase pushing that aircraft's cost up as well.. Thus still very little difference in purchase price between them.

 

[t68]

What do you mean 'we.' Aren't you not from Nova Scotia? Why should you get upset about how much it will cost the NZ taxpayer?

I think the "we" is meant to be referring to as a collective of the Five Eyes Alliance

The Govt and the general public in general seem to be quite comfortable with spending round $2B on a tier 1 maritime capability that a former DefMin described to me as the cornerstone capability of the NZDF.

The NZ Government have investigated this capability set thoroughly. It is not about cost (affordability has never been the issue in a strictly fiscal sense in NZ) or membership of certain security communities.

To me I think the goverment has come to reliase that it can no longer shirk it's responsibility in regards to it's regional responsibility and coalition building as part of the wider global community, the day of cuting capbilty is having a detrimental effect on overall capabilty.

GF has alluded to the aircraft potential a number of times with the greater coverage and time on station, if NZG can only budget for 4 airframes I'm happy with that knowing they have greatly increased capbilty from what they have now as long as they stay in lock step with RAAF and USN standard. In a way it's the same rational with the utility helicopters dropping in number but with the overall capbilty increasing

 

[bob23]

I think the "we" is meant to be referring to as a collective of the Five Eyes Alliance



To me I think the goverment has come to reliase that it can no longer shirk it's responsibility in regards to it's regional responsibility and coalition building as part of the wider global community, the day of cuting capbilty is having a detrimental effect on overall capabilty.

GF has alluded to the aircraft potential a number of times with the greater coverage and time on station, if NZG can only budget for 4 airframes I'm happy with that knowing they have greatly increased capbilty from what they have now as long as they stay in lock step with RAAF and USN standard. In a way it's the same rational with the utility helicopters dropping in number but with the overall capbilty increasing

Don't overestimate the increase in capability of the P-8 over the P-3K2. Yes it's a shiny new plane and we'd all love to think it's some futuristic, can't be beaten aircraft, but consider that the development time frames of the P-8 and the K2 are within a couple of years of each other.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

MrC would you believe Freudian slip? As soon as I hit the submit button I realized that my "We" would draw criticism. As T68 said it was a reference to 5i's membership as a whole.

I looked today at the latest wiki info for the P8 price and saw the $125 million price. I am stunned. The talk to date has been of an aircraft with a price in the $200 million range. If this is truly the case and the recent contract of Norway is representative of a realistic in service cost with training and initial support then that is not out of line. I still have to question whether the technology dependence is not a detriment as the numbers have fallen so low. If this is the direction NZ is likely going to follow I agree then with Ngati's numbers of five P8 and three UAV's of some type. Time will tell.

I am humbled by the knowledge and awareness of those in this discussion.

 

[MrConservative]

MrC would you believe Freudian slip? As soon as I hit the submit button I realized that my "We" would draw criticism. As T68 said it was a reference to 5i's membership as a whole.

No problems. Actually we doing pretty good here in NZ at present so if things don't pan out in Canadaland under Junior you can always shift here.

I looked today at the latest wiki info for the P8 price and saw the $125 million price. I am stunned. The talk to date has been of an aircraft with a price in the $200 million range. If this is truly the case and the recent contract of Norway is representative of a realistic in service cost with training and initial support then that is not out of line. I still have to question whether the technology dependence is not a detriment as the numbers have fallen so low. If this is the direction NZ is likely going to follow I agree then with Ngati's numbers of five P8 and three UAV's of some type. Time will tell.

I am humbled by the knowledge and awareness of those in this discussion.

The reducing MDE price of the P-8A has a lot to do with the virtues of increased production output. Other than the increase thickness of its fuselage over the standard 800 ERX design type with 900 wings, and the sensor/weapon systems fitout, their is considerable commonality with the high production bog average 737 and of course the economies of scale.

As I have said for quite a while it is not the airframe itself that is important it is the system with a system that is important and in this case it is a system that plugs into our nearest neighbours system for mutual defence and security benefit.

The discussion around 4 has been there since 2009 when cabinet were making their initial policy scoping papers prior to the DWP10. What with the increased surpluses due to be announced this week, they might find another couple of hundred million down the back of Bill English's Beehive couch to order five and that would be very admirable and sensible. If we are going to go for a UAV capability - it depends on what level / range we are after. Is it for fairly basic inshore customs / fisheries intelligence where by a smallish IAI design would suffice or is it as a enabler / extension to the P-8 which puts Triton squarely in the picture as it is a system within a system integrating with the ADF for mutual benefit.

 

[MrConservative]

Don't overestimate the increase in capability of the P-8 over the P-3K2. Yes it's a shiny new plane and we'd all love to think it's some futuristic, can't be beaten aircraft, but consider that the development time frames of the P-8 and the K2 are within a couple of years of each other.

Increment 3 which will be in the timeframe of our possible acquisition and implementation there is a clear difference over K2 and the Increment 1's that have been at JAX. You are right to point out that the K2 is a very good platform. Not many appreciate that because they cannot look past the elderly airframe.

 

[John Newman]

The reducing MDE price of the P-8A has a lot to do with the virtues of increased production output. Other than the increase thickness of its fuselage over the standard 800 ERX design type with 900 wings, and the sensor/weapon systems fitout, their is considerable commonality with the high production bog average 737 and of course the economies of scale.

As I have said for quite a while it is not the airframe itself that is important it is the system with a system that is important and in this case it is a system that plugs into our nearest neighbours system for mutual defence and security benefit.

The discussion around 4 has been there since 2009 when cabinet were making their initial policy scoping papers prior to the DWP10. What with the increased surpluses due to be announced this week, they might find another couple of hundred million down the back of Bill English's Beehive couch to order five and that would be very admirable and sensible. If we are going to go for a UAV capability - it depends on what level / range we are after. Is it for fairly basic inshore customs / fisheries intelligence where by a smallish IAI design would suffice or is it as a enabler / extension to the P-8 which puts Triton squarely in the picture as it is a system within a system integrating with the ADF for mutual benefit.

Mr C, certainly agree.

It's not often (or ever), you hear of a complex military aircraft program, still in it's relatively early days, having significant cost reductions.

Boeing: The Rollout of the First Australian P-8A

The comment I like:

The aircraft is the first commercial derivative to use an in-line production system to streamline production, increase efficiency and reduce costs—in the case of P-8, the Boeing Commercial 737 production line. Since the beginning of the program, costs have been reduced by 30% and production time has been reduced by 50%.

A reduction in cost by 30% and a reduction in production time by 50%, all very impressive (well done Boeing!).

You would have to think that the significant decrease in per airframe cost made it a lot easier for the Australian Government to increase the planned fleet size of the P-8A from 12 to 15 airframes too when the DWP was announced.

One would hope that if NZ does select Poseidon that the $'s available could be stretched to procure 5 airframes, the 30% reduction in per airframe cost should easily allow for that.

It would be impressive in our part of the world, that by around 2030, there are 20 P-8A airframes in service across both the RAAF and RNZAF.

And if the NZG was also to select Triton, say three airframes, that's ten Triton across the two fleets too.

And when you consider the considerable size of both our respective areas of maritime responsibility, it is the 'joint' capability that you want, and lets not forget that the USN will be operating their P-8A's and Triton in our neighbourhood too.

And importantly for the future of those fleets, if we all keep them to the 'one' configuration, and all participate in the various spiral upgrades, etc, well that sounds like a very big 'win win' for all involved too.

Cheers,

EDIT:

And one more quote of note from the Boeing press release too:

... during the 2014 search for the missing Malaysian Airlines MH370 flight. “The P-8s went further and stayed longer in the Indian Ocean than the other aircraft.”

I've seen this quote before, again, another good reason to operate the P-8A in our respective very very large areas of maritime responsibility too.

 

[ngatimozart]

Mr C, certainly agree.

It's not often (or ever), you hear of a complex military aircraft program, still in it's relatively early days, having significant cost reductions.

Boeing: The Rollout of the First Australian P-8A

The comment I like:

A reduction in cost by 30% and a reduction in production time by 50%, all very impressive (well done Boeing!).

You would have to think that the significant decrease in per airframe cost made it a lot easier for the Australian Government to increase the planned fleet size of the P-8A from 12 to 15 airframes too when the DWP was announced.

One would hope that if NZ does select Poseidon that the $'s available could be stretched to procure 5 airframes, the 30% reduction in per airframe cost should easily allow for that.

It would be impressive in our part of the world, that by around 2030, there are 20 P-8A airframes in service across both the RAAF and RNZAF.

And if the NZG was also to select Triton, say three airframes, that's ten Triton across the two fleets too.

And when you consider the considerable size of both our respective areas of maritime responsibility, it is the 'joint' capability that you want, and lets not forget that the USN will be operating their P-8A's and Triton in our neighbourhood too.

And importantly for the future of those fleets, if we all keep them to the 'one' configuration, and all participate in the various spiral upgrades, etc, well that sounds like a very big 'win win' for all involved too.

Cheers,

EDIT:

And one more quote of note from the Boeing press release too:

I've seen this quote before, again, another good reason to operate the P-8A in our respective very very large areas of maritime responsibility too.

That 30% is a goodly sum and real money. I wonder if they will be able to drop the KC46 price by a similar amount? If they do that may make it attractive as a possible B757 replacement. That would bring the flyaway cost down from NZ$343 million to around NZ$230 million. A heck of a lot cheaper than the KC30 MRTT.

 

[t68]

Don't overestimate the increase in capability of the P-8 over the P-3K2. Yes it's a shiny new plane and we'd all love to think it's some futuristic, can't be beaten aircraft, but consider that the development time frames of the P-8 and the K2 are within a couple of years of each other.

Diffrence in capabilty I am alluding to is a continued R&D upgrade path with the USN/RAAF/RAF and other user of the P8 also taking in larger systems that have further reach and range of the aircraft time in station and also having the capabilty for AAR if the NZG take's up the desired option of tanker aircraft, wich unturned would reduce the amount of aircraft needed from 6 to 4 being the minimum capabilty but the more the merrier if they get them.

 

[vonnoobie]

That 30% is a goodly sum and real money. I wonder if they will be able to drop the KC46 price by a similar amount? If they do that may make it attractive as a possible B757 replacement. That would bring the flyaway cost down from NZ$343 million to around NZ$230 million. A heck of a lot cheaper than the KC30 MRTT.

While there should be some cost savings with it being built on the same line as he civilian 767 I'm not so sure it will be in the ball park of the savings realized with the P-8. Being a smaller production aircraft in terms of numbers produced annually there is less room to make big savings.

That being said if Congress and the DOD dont stuff around and get the rest of the fleet replaced on the same line by the same aircraft type then cost could fall quite a bit.

 

[John Newman]

That 30% is a goodly sum and real money. I wonder if they will be able to drop the KC46 price by a similar amount? If they do that may make it attractive as a possible B757 replacement. That would bring the flyaway cost down from NZ$343 million to around NZ$230 million. A heck of a lot cheaper than the KC30 MRTT.

Hi Mate, yes that 30% reduction in cost of the P-8A is a goodly sum!

Just a pity it's the exception rather than the rule with it comes to military aircraft procurement cost!

And yes it will be interesting to see what happens with the KC-46A cost as the production process matures and they iron out all the kinks, etc, you would expect it to (maybe not as much in % terms as the P-8A), but it is being manufactured under the same 'in-line production' process as the P-8A.

I suppose the big difference, as I see it, between the KC-46A and the KC-30A, is the different 'focus' when it comes to the main deck.

KC-30A gives you that much larger passenger capability, at the expense of a main deck cargo capability (at least until the French eventually take delivery of one or their latter units that I understand is planned to be configured with a main deck cargo door), on the other hand the KC-46A is configure to have a main deck cargo door for greater main deck cargo capability, but at the expense of a lot smaller passenger capability.

Horses for courses, hey?