t68
Well-Known Member
I imagine what ever is in the RAAF AP3C's the US would have via other assets, is that why the role of the SigInt birds are coming from a different airframe Gulfstream 550) they don't want variants of variants this time?
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
kind of complicated as a subject
the US, Russia, UK have been the countries traditionally with the capacity and capability mass to have discretionary assets
however, the shift to distributed force has also seen a parallel development of distributed ISR, and C4ISR
the P8's are also battlespace managers in their own right, the Gulfstreams are far more discretionary - in a fashion you could furnish the argument that they are flying bearers....
different CONOPs connotations and there is some blurring out of functional necessity
Do not discount Amy Adams in the defence role as well if you are thinking of a female. Her name was one bandied about as a follow on from Coleman.
As a backbencher she volunteered to go to sea on an IPV and has indicated that she was interested in Defence & Foreign Affairs.
Thanks, I wasn't thinking so much of a female per se, but more of someone who was senior enough, preferably not old guard and had the chops and ability to do a really good job of the defence portfolio. Mind you a female Defence Minister wouldn't be a bad thing at all especially if she is as good as Marise Payne from across the ditch. Hmm wonder if we could poach her
Mad technology is still a useful sensor as it indicates the possible area to look in with other sensors and it appears that the USN still thinks so, as they have awarded a contract to BAE to develop a MAD drone specifically for the P8. From what I can gather it is to be an aircraft launched drone, probably small and disposable and probably launched from a weapons station. While modern low frequency radars can detect submarines at shallow depths and modern sonobuoys are very good, a deep submarine is still very difficult to find with these and you can't just throw sonobuoys everywhere and hope. Very low frequency coms interception can be useful, but only if the sub is communicating. A sub is a stealth machine and presents the same problems as a stealth aircraft with the additional problem that you can't even see it.
MAD is not a search sensor it's a localisation sensor and can only be used once the contact is being prosecuted and then only if the sub is shallow.
In this case it makes little sense to limit the P8 to flying this low altitude time consuming flight profile and a drone is a useful option whilst the aircraft can continue to prosecute, including weapon release from high altitude.
I would read and take very good note of what gf has said about the P8.
The highlighted section:
familiar tech such as MAD booms aren't needed anymore. the sensor suite capability is at the generational curve, They are literally the JSF of airborne ASW
is the crux of the matter and that is what we need to get our head around. The technology, sensors and information, manipulation management and dissemination methodologies have changed exponentially compared to that which the Orions have and are utilising.
If anyone knows about the platforms capabilities he does and he does know what he is talking about when he speaks about it. Also you will have seen that I have posted links to 2nd Line of Defence because they are reasonably authoritive articles about the aircraft and its capabilities. This is a new ball game at a completely new level.
ack. flight profile for a P8 is completely different to a P2, P3, IL May etc.... the sensors are operating at a different level (and I don't mean altitude), thats why the USN wasn't fussed about a mad stinger in the tail.
ultimately the ASW sensor chain is far more integrated and finessed than its ever been.
I mean does anyone seriously think that the USN P8's are less capable than the Indian P8's with a partial Sea Dragon suite....
I guess the other obvious caveat in here is that the members in here who have done ASW at both the air, skimmer and sub to sub level are going to very cautious in how much detail is let slip
I worked on 3 different sub programmes, all 3 subs were very different in their acoustic behaviour.
the main thing for me is that the peace dividend mentality is over wrt ASW
as a contractor overseas I was lucky enough to see the fighting finger construct discussed. (ie co-op manned and unmanned working in tandem) - if that combination is fielded then there will be an exponential improvement in capability
consider the issues surrounding sea bed arrays, USVs acting as bearer range extenders and as bush beaters and the fact that if your air can hear and see all this going on, then they become a stand off weapons carrier where the sub is less able to know whats going on.
the combat operating picture now includes subsea boxes
The point I was making was that the USN had signed a contract with BAE to develop a MAD drone for use by the P8, One would assume that they would not have done this if it was not needed .
CREF my earlier comments about P8's having a very different flight profile to all prev generations, the intended partnering with GH to act as a fighting pair, the fact that at the sensor level they are very different beast to all before them, hence my rough analogy of being the JSF of ASW
they are a battlespace manager in their own right (within the construct of their CONOPs)
they are to all intents and purposes a flying bearer.
there's a whole raft of future weapons sets flagged for inclusion - the lack of them in Block 1 has little impact on the capacity to hunt and kill subs - and in that department they are a golden mile ahead of the USN P3's and RAAF AP3C's.
I've attended numerous briefs where the pilots reinforce that a stinger is not missed.
having a MAD drone is all about extending the ability for the P8's to manage an array, be it sensor array or weapons array.
in a bastardised sense think of an E2 extending the range ring of a carrier TF, a MAD drone, or any future 4" derivatives is about extending the fighting range ring without having the P8 change its fundamental flight profile as it does its daily business.
the biggee in the room is when the companion UAS also acts as a hand off manager
Agree with the above, and that the MAD drone is just about adding another dimension to an already very capable aircraft/UAS system, I would assume that there are others in the pipeline, Lasers, wake detection and LED's, for example or they may already be here without us knowing. The other thing I would assume is that the power and programing of modern computing would have had the same effect on the MAD ability as it has in other area's
Last edited:
As well as the RAAF the United States Air Force, Singapore Air Force, Royal Malaysian Air Force and Japan Air Self-Defence Force have confirmed that they will be present for the RNZAF Air Tattoo at Ohakea 25-26/2/2017. Avalon is 28/2 - 5/3/2017 so odds on could be some interesting aircraft at Ohakea. The RAAF contingent at Ohakea has been confirmed as 3 x classic Hornets, a C27J and a C17A. I wonder if the JASDF will bring out a Kawasaki C2 for Ohakea and Avalon. Be silly not too. The USAF, SAF, RMAF and JASDF have yet to confirm the aircraft that will be bringing to Ohakea. As of yet no RAF presence and the RN didn't have a ship at the RNZN 75th.
Congratulations Qatar.
At least you don't shag around making your mind up, telling your proles one minute there is not enough money to spend on a once in a lifetime narrow procurement window that will anchor the next 40 years of RNZAF air mobility - then the next bragging about how economically prosperous we are and that we have Billion dollar surpluses as far as the eye can see.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Qatar?
Here's a bit of a twist:
Govt okays purchase of one C17 aircraft, clears acquisition of weapons system worth over Rs 7,000 cr | The Indian Express
According to that report, the Indian Government has approved the purchase of an additional C-17A, go figure?
Maybe the Indian Government doesn't know it's already sold (if the reports of Qatar purchasing it are correct).
And maybe also if they both start arguing over it, you Kiwi's can sneak in and pinch it from under both their noses!
Anyway, a nice Christmas thought!
Cheers,
Last edited:
The quote I posted was from someone who appears to be close to/involved in the Boeing Company C-17 program, and his info was in response to the report of Indian interest in ordering. His info was that India had left it too late.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Don't doubt what you are saying, but the only report (that I've found in the media), appears to be about India wanting the last 'white tail'.
But I wouldn't be surprised in the least that India has left it too late!
Just a pity our Kiwi cousins didn't end up with a couple.
The fat lady hasn't sung yet on that. There are a few USAF ones that have been retired to pasture that may one day find new owners. Yes I agree that the NZG was very slow off the mark then and should have written a cheque out for two right on the spot. Funding wouldn't been an issue because there were ways around it without having to disrupt the NZDF, capabilities, funding streams and budgets.
t68
Well-Known Member
And I hazard a guess that's where they will stay, there will come a time when the US will need to find replace for losses over the years, in the same way Ghost Rider B52 was resurrected from the boneyard.