Yes that would stack up, especially given that with modern simulators and training aids there is no longer a need for an aircraft to be tied up in training and improved serviceability should take care of the rest. I would like to see 5 aircraft,purely from an availability stand point as having one away for servicing makes a bigger hole in the fleet numbers available.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
This seems to be an old capability requirement as the K2's have an air search ability and it is a requirement in the RFI.
That only goes so far.
Availability/servicability will eventually deteriorate, but as it deteriorates there won't be any extra airframes to compensate, unless you can purchase some "pre- loved" P-8's, an unlikely scenario given the limited numbers being produced/purchased.
Still, almost every country is doing more with fewer airframes with each generation.
It is interesting to note that the KC-46 Tanker-Transport has been wired from the outset with a view to future multi-mission capabilities via the installation of plug-and-play consoles if a operator so wishes. Since its design inception it has always been looked upon as the USAF's first multi-mission mobility aircraft. It would be an interesting adjunct capability for any operator to pursue who may have at times limited numbers of tier 1 long range maritime ISR assets such as a P-8A available and who requires a backup contingency.
I'm right outta my depth here but it would seem to me that whilst the lack of NZ owned complimentary assets is likely to be true, NZ P8's could well still provide that critical 'plug & play' control component for an allied '5i' owned, P8 led network of complimentary assets.
In plain english - with a P8 we could provide a meaningful contribution to '5i' led operations by providing an aircraft that should just slot-in and be able to control allies complimentary assets. Getting a P1 to do the same would involve very expensive integration work of the P8 mission systems onto a new platform - something NZDF shouldn't (& surely won't) attempt - plus USA could even refuse to approve it.
from a latchkey perspective, and ease of continued integration at the 5I's level, P8 is the far better solution set
I got really excited about the possibility of a KC46 at one point, still would in fact, but it has a relatively small PAX capacity (58 with cargo & 114 at stretch presumably with no main deck pallets).
https://www.google.co.nz/imgres?img...p5_bbroW9KIzRM:&tbnh=141&tbnw=200&vet=1&w=960
Fine for VIP but it's a bigger more expensive a/c that B757 with about half the PAX capacity so it would be a lot more difficult to 'sell' a KC46 which has a lower VIP/PAX focus & more a tanker focus (I know not quite true but trying to think like NZ pollies & media who's butt's will clench when the price tag is seen). Whilst AAR is a 'desirable' capability th KC46 leans perhaps a little too far towards that side. Obviously that is what's it's been designed for... but I feel AAR won't be considered as important as VIP/PAX which AIUI is a core requirement.
Last edited:
Half the pax capability more is not quite correct as the RNZAF B757's seat 142 standard with 4 designated flight steward seats and 18 VIP when in pax transport configuration or carry 11 L463 pallets by volume or 22,400 kgs by weight in cargo configuration. The KC-46 has a reduced seated configuration of 114 pax in transport configuration plus additional permanent 15 crew/pax and 6 medevac litter positions, however it has airlift capabilities of 18 L463 pallets by volume or 29,500 kgs by weight.
So there are trade-offs and compromises. Is 114 pax in passenger transport mode sufficient? Well it is still approximately an infantry company and the added ability to carry a substantial amount of their personal equipment plus other stores. The other trade-off advantage is that the tactical solution will very likely have far superior troop lift capability than the C-130H. Since their conversion 10 years ago the B757's have very very rarely ever taken off with near on a full passenger complement. Besides there are only around 40 accredited full members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery to (not) worry about. Of course the 54 medevac litter capability is a good selling point to give any Polly or Repeater guilt ridden angst if they whinge.
Cheers for that MrC - puts a much better perspective on it! Yes I guess 114 isn't that much of an issue when looking at how much B757 capacity actually gets used on average. Think I was guilty of focusing specifically on the max seating capacity. The greater all-round utility & capability of the type would certainly be a positive step-up for RNZAF... but won't hold my breath!
The 114 pax is what has been FAA certified for USAF use as they have chosen a roomy 10 seat centreline per 108"W X 88"L pallet arrangement as well as mixed litter/seat pallets to get there. The manufacturer AAR produces a 15 seat cattle class version per 108"W X 88"L pallet as well - though not at this stage FAA certified for the KC-46. Not to say it could not be done - the Japanese cram in over a couple of hundy in their KC-767's - but if your called Murray or Manu maybe not such a popular move.
The ability to detect air traffic is desirable in the tactical environment.
The P-1 appears to have a formidable sensor suite and has Link 16 enabling tactical interoperability with allied forces. The Japanese AESA certainly offers advantages over the P-8 radar which has its roots back in the aging APS-137 (and further back than that even). The incremental upgrade program for the P-8 may address this however.
I'll keep playing devil's advocate, other benefits of the P-1...
--Better performance than P-3, no significant infrastructure/relocation required (as proved by P-1 operations at WP last year)
--Designed specifically to cater for low level operations, however you cut it the P-1 would be a more stable platform at low and slow due to wing shape/chord
--Designed as a direct replacement for the P-3 addressing inherent weaknesses of the type at high level while maintaining low level performance, could act as a direct replacement for orions without requiring an additional type
Of course the P-8 has significant strengths as well which have been covered already here. It almost is six of one and half a dozen of the other, with each platform having almost exclusively different strengths and weaknesses.
again, the danger is in having a platform centric argument
look at every force development in modernising militaries and its about the combat and information bubbles for the overall force - and that every bussed up asset is now identified as a contributor to the the system as an enabling adjunct force package in its own right as well as having core capabilities - or else it becomes an orphaned asset
this has been the development focus for the last 12 years - and its been undergoing rapid cycling in the last 5 years
the discussion needs to always focus on how a single platform or combat solution contributes to a joint effects force - because thats where the bang and fighting for the buck comes from
every force undergoing this transition has their force planners saying in the assessment - it can do x, and thats fine, but can it do y and z. what is the impact and effect it brings to all the combat capability vignettes that we throw on the table as part of the capability assessment
nobody wants one trick ponies any more
Read what GF has posted in reply especially the comment about one trick ponies. Today its all about data, data collection, data processing, data analysis, data dissemination and the actioning of that analysis either by the platform generating it in real time, another platform in real time or at a later time. Fixed wing ASW and ASuW has changed markedly and that is only one part of what the P3K2 replacement will have to undertake.
I come from a rural area and an uncle, who by the way was a WW2 veteran, once told me about the young ram and the old ram walking past a paddock full of ewes. The young ram says to the old ram lets race in there and do a few. The old ram looks at him and say, "Boy, lets walk in there and do the lot". The point of the story in this context is that why buy something that can only fill part of a future requirement when you can acquire a platform that meets most if not all of the requirements. Like GF says, ASW / ASuW is going the way of CAS where anything that can carry ordinance that suits will be able to drop it on the target as long as it has target data needed to effect the strike. The FASC RFI stipulates more than just chasing subs and sinking skimmers (surface ships).
A ram is a male sheep; the ewe female sheep, for those of you who are unfamiliar with farming.
as an example, there is serious discussion about JSF being an enabler for ASW, ASuW - it won't necessarily prosecute the closing of the loop to kill the object of desire, but it can contribute to the overall contact and combat bubble.
in a whole number of areas the P8 has a superior sensor and ISR suite that some airforces have in dedicated AEW platforms, in fact I've seen friendly arguments break out between the P8 transitioners and E7 operators. friendly and competitive banter aside, it bears cautious respect as where there is smoke.....
now I'm not suggesting that NZ get back into fixed wing combat (although personally I'd love to see it just as much as I woody up on a RAN FW FAA
),but the issue is around the rapid developments and potential around all these new generation capabilities where the platforms are not just airborne niche weapons systems, but are also flying bearers (as in comms bearer) and where they all contribute to a flying combat array.its not Skynet, but the potential is advancing in leaps and bounds.
you buy as much future proofing as you can because your force should be in a constant state of development - hence the recent decisions by modern militaries to walk away from the one trick pony model and demonstrate a clear aversion to it
from a 5I's perspective, an ability to talk to each other way beyond each countries JOC at an ISR, weapons delivery, eared up level is pretty significant. everything on Link16 and Link22 be it air, land, sea and space bearers can talk and co-operate, the fact that the distribution can occur across all fighting dimensions and that co-operative combat is proven and tested makes it almost an imperative for any smaller force to plan that structure into any future force developments - and the planning is no longer service centric - on acquisition and capability assessments all the services get involved in looking at a "nominal" single service selection. to all intents, every acquisition becomes a purple analysis
am not trying to tell anyone how to suck eggs, but these issues are now front and centre with all the modern and remodeled militaries
looking at any platform via a single centric lens is not the best way to conduct an assessment
Last edited:
Video: How to park an Andover.
An interesting comment that came out of Japan regarding the RNZAF P3 replacement, was that they considered that this was the first time that the P1 and the P8 had gone head to head on a level playing field. Why they consider that the playing field is now level and was not in the past I don't know. but it was mentioned that they could consider selling at both the P8 and the C2 at a loss. How accurate this journalist and were he got the information. I don't know.
t68
Well-Known Member
Pointing fingers at the UK, it's not unknown that some RFT are prejudiced towards certain equipment to suit a particular need. But I imagine that the Japanese are not silly enough to bring a system on line that is not compatable with working with the US 7th Fleet, just come down to how integrated you wish to become.
not sure how many in here have done platform assessments or been involved with contract discussions on FMS issues
but, there is a whole pile of stuff that has to be factored in when dealing with non US acquisitions using FMS and ITARs gear on board
there are a raft of things that have to be addressed before the platform gets a serious look-in
there is a degree of complexity beyond the issues flagged in here. its another layer of difficulty that would be there if there was a 3rd option (eg Nimrod Mk 700xx etc...)
I'd like to see some japanese systems prosper, but its not a simple process - and the reality of other acquisition hurdles that need to be considered is the bear in the woods
but, there is a whole pile of stuff that has to be factored in when dealing with non US acquisitions using FMS and ITARs gear on board
there are a raft of things that have to be addressed before the platform gets a serious look-in
there is a degree of complexity beyond the issues flagged in here. its another layer of difficulty that would be there if there was a 3rd option (eg Nimrod Mk 700xx etc...)
I'd like to see some japanese systems prosper, but its not a simple process - and the reality of other acquisition hurdles that need to be considered is the bear in the woods
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
I was curious as to how prepared our airforce bases are to accomodate a C2 or A400 M , Is this something being addressed by the infrastructure spend on our bases, or is is this just a refresh or upgrade of what we currently have? S omething was mentioned here that our Hangers/airstrips cant accomodate either?
Definitely upgrades and rebuilds - not a just touch-up. The first serious money being spent at WP since WW2. The current hanger door size of the two large hangers at WP is the problem but as the doors and curtain wall are non structural it is not an issue to replace with hanger doors that will allow the ingress/egress of larger aircraft. That I understand is the intention.