Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Todjaeger]

Read a large article from think defence on A400M as a multi mission replacement aircraft, not just for Hercules, or as refueling capability, but for MPA as well. A lot of video clips on capability and graphs shown too. What would be the opinion of those here on a single option of A400 M to replace Strategic, Tactical and MPA roles?

About 13 aircraft in all, the same number coincidently as what Germany is looking to on sell. A larger purchase would make the overall purchase a lot cheaper,MPA modules or palletised versions were shown as were other solutions for ASW ect with minimal impact on the plane.After all it was pointed out the savings in having a common fleet operational wise.

At an airframe level, it could certainly cover a number of roles. Where things become sticky and/or questionable is whether or not such an airframe would be efficient at some roles, or cost-effective at others.

Apart from the need to develop the ISR package, which would be expensive if done comprehensively, consider what impact the package would have upon the aircraft. The USCG uses the HC-144 Ocean Sentry, based off the CN-235 MP Persuader, with some sensors and ISR systems permanently fitted, with RoRo modular control stations. This allows the USCG to change roles between airlift and maritime surveillance.

While such work could be done on a version of the A400M, given the great size of the A400M I have to wonder if it would be efficient to do so. In terms of dimensions and weight, the A400M is significantly larger than the new P-8 Poseidon, and would dwarf the P-3 Orion (MTOW 141,000 kg for A400M vs. 64,400 km for P-3C Orion). Given the size and capacity, I suspect a dedicated MPA version for the A400M would often be significantly empty, meaning the excess capacity (weight & volume) would be unneeded. This in turn would likely mean inefficiencies to operate, support and maintain.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

There has been speculation on this thread that in addition to a P8 buy,as a direct replacement of the P3B due to its exceptional performance over legacy types, of a long endurance UAV such as the Triton which Australia is acquiring. Looking at the link below from purely a cost perspective can this be absorbed by the existing budget projections?

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/triton-herald-sea-change-raaf-surveillance/

That's a lot of treasure.

 

[gf0012-aust]

There has been speculation on this thread that in addition to a P8 buy,as a direct replacement of the P3B due to its exceptional performance over legacy types, of a long endurance UAV such as the Triton which Australia is acquiring. Looking at the link below from purely a cost perspective can this be absorbed by the existing budget projections?

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/triton-herald-sea-change-raaf-surveillance/

That's a lot of treasure.

australia already has established the facilities within a proxy space command, has run trials with US forces in germany and hawai'i, has LR OTHR which has been used as part of the broader surveillance integration for BAMS - all of that was planned and developed ahead of even formulating BAMS (which initially was a RAAF proposal for future companion ISR/CSAS/ASW BAMS constructs

NZ has none of this, none of the current UAS command and control structure, so it would be a greenfields event

the cost for that will be as much as the cost of building either a small flight or short squadron of UAS

I would think it would blow out the budget for years to come

 

[MrConservative]

There has been speculation on this thread that in addition to a P8 buy,as a direct replacement of the P3B due to its exceptional performance over legacy types, of a long endurance UAV such as the Triton which Australia is acquiring. Looking at the link below from purely a cost perspective can this be absorbed by the existing budget projections?

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/triton-herald-sea-change-raaf-surveillance/

That's a lot of treasure.

The current budgetary planning timeframe goes up to 2030 with the FASC to replace the P-3K2 is likely to be in our fleet from circa 2025/26. What people have suggested as a longterm development of FASC is Triton or variant as a follow on post 2030 as a coherent adjunct. Thus it is beyond the current scope of the current budgetary timeframe.

 

[ADMk2]

There has been speculation on this thread that in addition to a P8 buy,as a direct replacement of the P3B due to its exceptional performance over legacy types, of a long endurance UAV such as the Triton which Australia is acquiring. Looking at the link below from purely a cost perspective can this be absorbed by the existing budget projections?

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/triton-herald-sea-change-raaf-surveillance/

That's a lot of treasure.

I would hazard a guess that RNAZF would be doing extremely well if it gets a 1 for 1 or near 1 for 1 replace of P-3K with P-8A, particularly given I understand NZ also has a short range MPA requirement which will be a different platform again...

 

[Novascotiaboy]

It is my experience that when working together with pooled resources there is a benefit to be had when another party brings a different capability to the table. If the RAAF are going the high end with P8 and Triton would it not make more sense for the RNZAF to come to the table with systems that can compliment those already in place with abilities that her allies don't posses?

For this reason I believe there are benefits of NZ maintaining its heritage of operating low and slow with aircraft such as the Kawasaki P1.

From a risk management perspective given fifty years of operational experience this strategy has worked. Just because the US, with its infinite access to cash, makes a quantum change doesn't mean everyone else has to. If all you want to do is play with the US on their ops then fine. But if you truly want to protect the SLOC to and from NZ then buy the capabilities needed to protect NZ and its people.

A fleet of P1's equipped with a standoff air to surface missile and new generation torpedoes is IMHO what's needed based upon the likely threats to NZ. Let's be realistic at this point. Who will be operating submarines or offensive surface ships in NZ waters in the next fifty years? Maybe China. Probably Russia. Definitely the US. No other nation has the resources or desire to operate so far from home. Even operating RNZAF resources overseas from a forward base the dynamics of low and slow options will be appreciated by the OIC.

 

[Rob c]

It is my experience that when working together with pooled resources there is a benefit to be had when another party brings a different capability to the table. If the RAAF are going the high end with P8 and Triton would it not make more sense for the RNZAF to come to the table with systems that can compliment those already in place with abilities that her allies don't posses?

For this reason I believe there are benefits of NZ maintaining its heritage of operating low and slow with aircraft such as the Kawasaki P1.

From a risk management perspective given fifty years of operational experience this strategy has worked. Just because the US, with its infinite access to cash, makes a quantum change doesn't mean everyone else has to. If all you want to do is play with the US on their ops then fine. But if you truly want to protect the SLOC to and from NZ then buy the capabilities needed to protect NZ and its people.

A fleet of P1's equipped with a standoff air to surface missile and new generation torpedoes is IMHO what's needed based upon the likely threats to NZ. Let's be realistic at this point. Who will be operating submarines or offensive surface ships in NZ waters in the next fifty years? Maybe China. Probably Russia. Definitely the US. No other nation has the resources or desire to operate so far from home. Even operating RNZAF resources overseas from a forward base the dynamics of low and slow options will be appreciated by the OIC.

There has already been significant discussion along these lines with some disagreement, however it is a valid point of view. It is unfortunate that we don't have more information in regard to the RFI, but it appeared from what we got, that the P8 brings more to the table than what the RFI asked for and as we don't have the complimentary high tech equipment to get full value from the P8 as the Australians have, or are getting. eg"Wedge tail, F35,Triton etc". For this reason these extra abilities may not have a positive impact on the "business case", so I believe that the field is a little more wide open than first thought. Price could still play a significant hand in this selection.
http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/P-8-Poseidon.html
Recent costing.

 

[MrConservative]

I would hazard a guess that RNAZF would be doing extremely well if it gets a 1 for 1 or near 1 for 1 replace of P-3K with P-8A, particularly given I understand NZ also has a short range MPA requirement which will be a different platform again...

Its not. The P-3K2 replacement is likely to be four airframes with the former low end role picked up on another platform.

 

[Rob c]

Its not. The P-3K2 replacement is likely to be four airframes with the former low end role picked up on another platform.

Mr C the idea of a low end resources protection platform had significant traction some time ago, Do you have any knowledge as to any progress in this field or is it an add on to the twin engine/Air warfare operator training package.

 

[MrConservative]

Mr C the idea of a low end resources protection platform had significant traction some time ago, Do you have any knowledge as to any progress in this field or is it an add on to the twin engine/Air warfare operator training package.

Yes it has. It has been around for 10 years or more when Phil Goff was running defence and ever since then it has been bumbling away without the formal process getting off the ground. There have questions raised over this capability gap and if it should be contracted out ala OZ style. It will likely be an add on to ME & AW training as that has been the mantra coming from the "nothing has been decided yet but, ..." of the last four ministers.

 

[RegR]

It is my experience that when working together with pooled resources there is a benefit to be had when another party brings a different capability to the table. If the RAAF are going the high end with P8 and Triton would it not make more sense for the RNZAF to come to the table with systems that can compliment those already in place with abilities that her allies don't posses?

For this reason I believe there are benefits of NZ maintaining its heritage of operating low and slow with aircraft such as the Kawasaki P1.

From a risk management perspective given fifty years of operational experience this strategy has worked. Just because the US, with its infinite access to cash, makes a quantum change doesn't mean everyone else has to. If all you want to do is play with the US on their ops then fine. But if you truly want to protect the SLOC to and from NZ then buy the capabilities needed to protect NZ and its people.

A fleet of P1's equipped with a standoff air to surface missile and new generation torpedoes is IMHO what's needed based upon the likely threats to NZ. Let's be realistic at this point. Who will be operating submarines or offensive surface ships in NZ waters in the next fifty years? Maybe China. Probably Russia. Definitely the US. No other nation has the resources or desire to operate so far from home. Even operating RNZAF resources overseas from a forward base the dynamics of low and slow options will be appreciated by the OIC.

The thing is we don't exactly pool resources bar training in this particular instance and differing platforms would somewhat negate this anyway, ie we don't send our P3s to patrol around Aus territory as such and vice versa so bringing something alternate to the table does not have the same benefits for this particular capability vs say air transport. For us and our comparitively large patrol area our requirements are just as relevant albeit Aus is more able to "afford" and therefore expand/employ the combat part of the package more.

The FASC project is an important cornerstone for NZDF and NZ in general and although we may not be able to afford the full benefits of a P8/triton combination there are still the obvious gains P8 would bring in itself over our current fleet regardless. Combined with a low/mid tier I think will still provide a vast improvement for our needs even with a smaller primary fleet as tasks can then be more allocated and tailored reducing inefficiencies somewhat.

 

[Rob c]

this is an interesting link on a P3 pilot and his transition to the P8 and the diferences and and some thoughts on the future of the P8
Confessions Of A US Navy P-3 Orion Maritime Patrol Pilot

 

[gf0012-aust]

this is an interesting link on a P3 pilot and his transition to the P8 and the diferences and and some thoughts on the future of the P8
Confessions Of A US Navy P-3 Orion Maritime Patrol Pilot

Have said it elsewhere re P8, but in so many areas it is literally the JSF of ASW/ISR compared to a P3

I've had the good fortune to have some observation into its capability. the article is deliberately underwhelming for obvious reasons.

the number of other capabilities and systems that will support and be integrated is mind boggling.

there is nothing else that comes remotely close

 

[Rob c]

Have said it elsewhere re P8, but in so many areas it is literally the JSF of ASW/ISR compared to a P3

I've had the good fortune to have some observation into its capability. the article is deliberately underwhelming for obvious reasons.

the number of other capabilities and systems that will support and be integrated is mind boggling.

there is nothing else that comes remotely close

The P8 has had good publicity, but in the P1 's case the Japanese have been playing their cards very close to their chest. I have found out a couple of interesting details thought.In the radar field the P6 uses a modern development of the P3c radar in which its lineage goes right back to the P3A . but obviously in a completely up to date mechanically scanning unit but not 360 degrees in all modes. the P1 uses a modern electronically scanning unit with continuous 360 coverage. this unit is said to be superior in the air to air mode and in fine definition. the P1 uses artificial intelligence for sensor information collation and distribution, I assume the P8 does the same. At this stage it is difficult to find the full capabilities of the P1. Using US/Jap government figures the P1 Appears, using 2015 figures, to be a bit cheaper ($US140m to $US178m ) though full program cost would be a lot different

 

[gf0012-aust]

The P8 has had good publicity, but in the P1 's case the Japanese have been playing their cards very close to their chest. I have found out a couple of interesting details thought.In the radar field the P6 uses a modern development of the P3c radar in which its lineage goes right back to the P3A . but obviously in a completely up to date mechanically scanning unit but not 360 degrees in all modes. the P1 uses a modern electronically scanning unit with continuous 360 coverage. this unit is said to be superior in the air to air mode and in fine definition. the P1 uses artificial intelligence for sensor information collation and distribution, I assume the P8 does the same. At this stage it is difficult to find the full capabilities of the P1. Using US/Jap government figures the P1 Appears, using 2015 figures, to be a bit cheaper ($US140m to $US178m ) though full program cost would be a lot different

the bigger issue is around systems capability - the fighting bubble - the japanese are nowhere near the level of combat bubble that the USN and USAF enjoy - the P1 is still basically a platform centric analysis

chalk and cheese by a golden mile

 

[Rob c]

the bigger issue is around systems capability - the fighting bubble - the japanese are nowhere near the level of combat bubble that the USN and USAF enjoy - the P1 is still basically a platform centric analysis

chalk and cheese by a golden mile

In the NZ context, we simply don't have the complimentary assets to make full use of some of the capabilities that the P8 brings and that we don't know what the P1 is really capable of, as all I have gleaned so far is that it uses artificial intelligence,link 16 and commentators say the radar is superior, the rest is normal for asw, awac's , intel and electronic countermeasures (CMD, RWR, MWS, ESM).

 

[gf0012-aust]

we don't know what the P1 is really capable of

at the combat bubble level it is possible to start cross checking against peers.

as a standalone asset, then it gets down to absolute metrics
as a systems participant - the lack of comparative joint integration against the rest of the ORBAT and maritime force elements makes it a modernised P3 equiv

any platform analysis has to invite the question, what is its capability advantage over peers....? apart from modernised and digital upgrades, there is not a lot to separate it with any confidence from others competing at that level

not intended to dismiss the japanese effort at all - but there is nothing in the specs that make it stand out and trigger, "this is the battle changer"

all of modern force development is heading down the path of each force element being a contributor or enhancer - its very much a team work philosophy

asw is heading down the CAS path - ie everything that can talk and carry is a potential CAS asset - the same philosophy applies to ASW even though at the evolutionary level its slower than whats happening with CAS

 

[Sam W]

this unit is said to be superior in the air to air mode and in fine definition.

I am interested to know what the most likely situation the P-3 replacement would be in that would compel it to use the radar on air to air mode?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I am interested to know what the most likely situation the P-3 replacement would be in that would compel it to use the radar on air to air mode?

I assume that someone in RNZAF has done range rings for all heavy aircraft strips, married that to NZ territory, and then done a corresponding set of rings against peer threats at the perimeter of NZ territory. somewhere in the overlap they've come up with a defensive req

 

[ADMk2]

Its not. The P-3K2 replacement is likely to be four airframes with the former low end role picked up on another platform.

That is what I was referring to, though I personally feel that 'capability-wise' 4x P-8A's would be roughly equivalent 1 to 1 to 6x P-3k2, particular when availability is concerned vis a vis reurbished second hand airframes and given the capability differences.