Royal New Zealand Air Force

[ngatimozart]

With the decision by OZ to buy the Schiebel S100 camcopter this week has there been any movement by the RNZAF to begin the process of trialing RPAS to meet the needs of the Littoral vessel and other operations?

What is this groups views on how a Schiebel type or Scan Eagle type RPAS's can best be utilized to support Defence Force operations?

IIRC the RFT for the LWSC specified capabilities to operate a RPAS of similar size to the S-100 Camcopter so I would presume that be what they are looking at; something in that range for operating from ships anyway. I haven't heard of any trials or such of the S-100 or similar within NZDF, but that means nothing. Things like that can be and are done on the quiet. They will have had significant exposure to RPAS technologies and capabilities from overseas ops and exercises, plus the NZ Army has used small RPAS of their own in the past.

From my own POV it is a capability type that will eventually find its way into the NZDF and it would be quite a sensible and logical acquisition especially for operation off OPVs and FFGs. Undoubtedly there would also be a tactical use for it within the NZ Army. Whether it is specifically the S-100 or another platform of similar size remains to be seen. At present I would be more concerned about the capability rather than individual platforms.

 

[ngatimozart]

What numbers of aircraft would be needed then for short range MPA? Would it make much of a dent in the budget?

The budget for the Aircrew Training Capability (ACTC) is fixed and the submitters know what it is and have to tailor their submissions within that figure. As I said earlier the radars will be Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) and the cost of that is separate to this. The SR MPA will be a by product of the ACTC training program; it will be part of the course syllabus - on the job training. From the RFT the intention is for the radars to be modular so that only 2 or maybe 3 will have to be acquired and they can be moved from aircraft to aircraft as required. Also part of the contract will be the current 42 Sqn taskings of MEPT, VIP and general duties.

 

[htbrst]

I haven't heard of any trials or such of the S-100 or similar within NZDF, but that means nothing. Things like that can be and are done on the quiet. They will have had significant exposure to RPAS technologies and capabilities from overseas ops and exercises, plus the NZ Army has used small RPAS of their own in the past.

Yip. There was an article on stuff a few months ago about HMNZS Wellington which implied something was up.Now that CAA have changed the UAV rules it should be easier to get a demo up and running (vs Transpowers Camcopter demo which flew afoul of the rules of the time)

The sensors installed were capable of operating from the equator to the poles, with a specific focus on supporting aviation tasks including the currently-deployed Remotely Piloted Aerial System.

Defence Force helps predict weather in Kaikoura after MetService station knocked out | Stuff.co.nz

 

[ngatimozart]

Yip. There was an article on stuff a few months ago about HMNZS Wellington which implied something was up.Now that CAA have changed the UAV rules it should be easier to get a demo up and running (vs Transpowers Camcopter demo which flew afoul of the rules of the time)

Defence Force helps predict weather in Kaikoura after MetService station knocked out | Stuff.co.nz

Cool, thanks for that. So next question does anyone have any idea what the RPAS system is?

I did read that the University of Canterbury have a CAA approved UAV dedicated airspace out somewhere by Birdlings Flat near Te Waihora / Lake Ellesmere which when in use by them they have exclusive use of that airspace including that above 400ft AGL. They also have a rocket launching site out that way too. The other and major NZ launch pad site for satellite launches, is the East Cape of the North Island.

 

[Cadredave]

Cool, thanks for that. So next question does anyone have any idea what the RPAS system is?

I did read that the University of Canterbury have a CAA approved UAV dedicated airspace out somewhere by Birdlings Flat near Te Waihora / Lake Ellesmere which when in use by them they have exclusive use of that airspace including that above 400ft AGL. They also have a rocket launching site out that way too. The other and major NZ launch pad site for satellite launches, is the East Cape of the North Island.

Wairoa or Mahia Peninsular to be exact NG its located on Tawapata South - Maori Incorporation land test launches to begin soon. I read that article as well need to watch the next big exercise down south to see if anything from any ABCA countries shows up.

 

[ngatimozart]

Wairoa or Mahia Peninsular to be exact NG its located on Tawapata South - Maori Incorporation land test launches to begin soon. I read that article as well need to watch the next big exercise down south to see if anything from any ABCA countries shows up.

SK 17 this year isn't it Dave? Over the coast again I think.

 

[Cadredave]

SK 17 this year isn't it Dave? Over the coast again I think.

Yeah I think so, be very interested in the units being deployed here from the states, im not sure of the location but with that CAA gazette set up its the perfect place to use Uni of Canterbury to gather information to inform NZDF imo.

Dave

 

[Rob c]

The RNZAF is deploying a P-3K2 Orion to the Middle East for 12 months to support the US-led Combined Maritime Forces (CMF) against piracy and people and drug trafficking. The first rotation of personnel left last night and the Orion follows later this week.

I wonder if this sort of operation has been taken into account in regard to the numbers of replacement aircraft required by the FASC. If 4 is the number required I would have thought that it would be very difficult to also carry out this type of operation from a pool of 4 aircraft?

 

[Gibbo]

I wonder if this sort of operation has been taken into account in regard to the numbers of replacement aircraft required by the FASC. If 4 is the number required I would have thought that it would be very difficult to also carry out this type of operation from a pool of 4 aircraft?

Yes thinking the same - I suspect 4 is a number derived by applying the 'what's the bare minimum we can get away with' rule that seems to invariably be applied to NZDF investments! 5 I could handle but 4 makes things tight, especially as they age!

Overseas deployments will make things tight with a fleet of 4:
1 on overseas deployment
1 on immediate readiness for long range SAR
1 on resource protection up towards the islands or down toward the ice
1 rotating thru maintenance
So no contingency and training I guess will have to be squeezed in on the 2nd option above where possible.

 

[MrConservative]

Yes thinking the same - I suspect 4 is a number derived by applying the 'what's the bare minimum we can get away with' rule that seems to invariably be applied to NZDF investments! 5 I could handle but 4 makes things tight, especially as they age!

Overseas deployments will make things tight with a fleet of 4:
1 on overseas deployment
1 on immediate readiness for long range SAR
1 on resource protection up towards the islands or down toward the ice
1 rotating thru maintenance
So no contingency and training I guess will have to be squeezed in on the 2nd option above where possible.

I wouldn't hit the panic button too soon but yes five will always be better than four, however some of the desirables of the strategic component of the FAMC RFI seek to provide an element of support capability to manage taskings across the whole of fleet. FAMC strategic solution fitted with a IBR2 tactical terminal providing the ability to receive near real-time situational awareness information and locator information for search and rescue operations would assist.

 

[Rob c]

Yes thinking the same - I suspect 4 is a number derived by applying the 'what's the bare minimum we can get away with' rule that seems to invariably be applied to NZDF investments! 5 I could handle but 4 makes things tight, especially as they age!

Overseas deployments will make things tight with a fleet of 4:
1 on overseas deployment
1 on immediate readiness for long range SAR
1 on resource protection up towards the islands or down toward the ice
1 rotating thru maintenance
So no contingency and training I guess will have to be squeezed in on the 2nd option above where possible.

The other aircraft requirement missing is for the aircraft that is needed to take over from the mission aircraft at the end of it's endurance. this was the problem the air force faced when it had only 5 P3B's and led to the purchase of the sixth one in the 80's They simply could not send out a replacement aircraft to take over from the mission aircraft with any regularity.

 

[Gibbo]

The other aircraft requirement missing is for the aircraft that is needed to take over from the mission aircraft at the end of it's endurance. this was the problem the air force faced when it had only 5 P3B's and led to the purchase of the sixth one in the 80's They simply could not send out a replacement aircraft to take over from the mission aircraft with any regularity.

Yes, it's these short notice 'surge' requirements that a fleet of 4 won't cope with - certainly hope these sorts of experiences & knowledge are being tabled to the project team. Brownlee made comments that 4 a/c were being looked at so that doesn't bode well to me.

I would assume it is during a SAR tasking that the need for a quick 'handover' to another a/c (& crew) is most likely to be required. As MrC points out in the post above that the FAMC RFI does have some SAR capability listed and may have some suitable 'tools' but it's safe to assume that would provide a lot less equivalent in terms of a search radar & FLIR that I assume to be the most used SAR sensors (beyond the Mk1 eyeball which does get used most).

The FASC capability represents a 'once in a generation' investment that will define one of the RNZAF's most important core capabilities, so it's time for NZ to bite the bullet & spend the $$$ to buy a fleet big enough to deliver!

 

[Rob c]

Yes, it's these short notice 'surge' requirements that a fleet of 4 won't cope with - certainly hope these sorts of experiences & knowledge are being tabled to the project team. Brownlee made comments that 4 a/c were being looked at so that doesn't bode well to me.

I would assume it is during a SAR tasking that the need for a quick 'handover' to another a/c (& crew) is most likely to be required. As MrC points out in the post above that the FAMC RFI does have some SAR capability listed and may have some suitable 'tools' but it's safe to assume that would provide a lot less equivalent in terms of a search radar & FLIR that I assume to be the most used SAR sensors (beyond the Mk1 eyeball which does get used most).

The FASC capability represents a 'once in a generation' investment that will define one of the RNZAF's most important core capabilities, so it's time for NZ to bite the bullet & spend the $$$ to buy a fleet big enough to deliver!

We must keep in mind that the armed forces primary role is the security of NZ and a surge may take place during a period of instability or even conflict (remote but possible.) in which case the surge could last for an extended period of time.

 

[MrConservative]

At present we have is six Orions that average output of 2400 tasking hours per annum or just 400 hours per airframe.

OTOH using average utilisation rates coming out of JAX the P-8A for example is providing an output of 700 hours per airframe and a design expectation of up to 1000 hours per annum.

Thus on that basis alone using the lower 700 hour figure if four P-8A's are selected they are able to generate 400 tasking hours more per annum (viz 2800 output hours) than the current six P-3K2 or in other words it would take seven P-3K's to do the job of four P-8A's.

Then factor in what the P-8A can surveil within each tasked hour - the early studies out of JAX on increment 1 were that the P-8A was able to substantially increase the surveilled area of the legacy P-3C. Also add into the mix that the beauty of using the worlds most common commercial jet platform with dramatically better availability rates compared to 50 year old legacy aircraft.

Then bring into the play that the King Air based MEPT/AWT solution will provide for SR-MPS a new and additional capability to supplement the current P-3K2 role and if for example the KC-46 is selected as the B757 replacement then you also have a multi-mission platform (having numerous other potential synergies with the P-8A that we have discussed previously) that is production wired with IBR2 tactical terminal therefore offering a further adjunct capability to take on some aspects with respect to long range SAR / Surveillance of the P-8A role if necessitated. If the tactical aspect of the FAMC solution includes the SAR / ISR 'desirables' as noted in its RFI then the capability scope is even widened further giving the air component commender the flexibility to efficiently allocate tasking resources to meet output demand scenarios.

All air forces in the 21st Century see the sense in approaching capability solutions from a blended spectrum approach and not from the traditional platform - numbers - mission paradigm to achieve their outputs. Therefore numbers of a specific platform are not the full story.

 

[Gibbo]

At present we have is six Orions that average output of 2400 tasking hours per annum or just 400 hours per airframe.

OTOH using average utilisation rates coming out of JAX the P-8A for example is providing an output of 700 hours per airframe and a design expectation of up to 1000 hours per annum.

Thus on that basis alone using the lower 700 hour figure if four P-8A's are selected they are able to generate 400 tasking hours more per annum (viz 2800 output hours) than the current six P-3K2 or in other words it would take seven P-3K's to do the job of four P-8A's.

Then factor in what the P-8A can surveil within each tasked hour - the early studies out of JAX on increment 1 were that the P-8A was able to substantially increase the surveilled area of the legacy P-3C. Also add into the mix that the beauty of using the worlds most common commercial jet platform with dramatically better availability rates compared to 50 year old legacy aircraft.

Then bring into the play that the King Air based MEPT/AWT solution will provide for SR-MPS a new and additional capability to supplement the current P-3K2 role and if for example the KC-46 is selected as the B757 replacement then you also have a multi-mission platform (having numerous other potential synergies with the P-8A that we have discussed previously) that is production wired with IBR2 tactical terminal therefore offering a further adjunct capability to take on some aspects with respect to long range SAR / Surveillance of the P-8A role if necessitated. If the tactical aspect of the FAMC solution includes the SAR / ISR 'desirables' as noted in its RFI then the capability scope is even widened further giving the air component commender the flexibility to efficiently allocate tasking resources to meet output demand scenarios.

All air forces in the 21st Century see the sense in approaching capability solutions from a blended spectrum approach and not from the traditional platform - numbers - mission paradigm to achieve their outputs. Therefore numbers of a specific platform are not the full story.

Excellent post, thanks for putting a wider perspective on the subject... there's points in there I hadn't fully grasped.

With regard to the earlier question about ability to sustain overseas deployments from a fleet of 4, there's not a lot of debate as to whether such a deployment would make resourcing other 5 sqn taskings tougher - 5 sqn would really need to be on the ball with maintenance - well resourced & well managed (not saying they aren't already!).

 

[Rob c]

My concern about the numbers was not the ability of the replacement aircraft to do the hours required, which i am sure they can. But rather one of availability, would we have the right number of aircraft available when we needed them. As 5 sqd is not operating an airline, the hours are not that relevant, what is relevant is availability at the right place and time of the necessary number of aircraft when someone hits the panic button for what ever reason and it may not be something as simple as a SAR

 

[rjtjrt]

Is Norway's P-8 purchase instructive in this context?
Currently they have 6 P-3 MPA's.
They have just announced they are ordering 5 P-8 to replace them.
Seems to be a somewhat analagous decision to forthcoming RNZAF decision.
(Yes, I realise RNZAF have a very large region in area for SAR responsibility.)

 

[John Newman]

All air forces in the 21st Century see the sense in approaching capability solutions from a blended spectrum approach and not from the traditional platform - numbers - mission paradigm to achieve their outputs. Therefore numbers of a specific platform are not the full story.

Mr C, certainly agree with you points, and it's not just platform numbers either.

But I do wonder what the 'appropriate' minimum number is, and especially taking into account scheduled 'heavy maintenance' requirements.

I wouldn't have a clue what the heavy maintenance requirements (how often and for how long) would be applicable for a P-8A, but I can't help but think about the RAAF's C-17A fleet.

From memory, after about 5 years of service, the first of the RAAF's 'four' C-17's was due to return to the US for a six month heavy maintenance period, when it was due to return, airframe No 2 would follow, and so on, basically the fleet of 'four' would have been reduced to 'three' for a period of approx. two years every 5 years or so.

And as we know, airframe No 5 was delivered just before airframe No 1 headed off to the US (and subsequently No's 6, 7 & 8 too).

So whilst 4 P-8A's will probably be able to perform and complete the tasks of the current 6 P-3K2's, I do wonder what 'impact' potentially long periods of P-8A heavy maintenance would have on the capability when those heavy maintenance periods are due?

Anyway, interesting question, does anyone have an idea of the heavy maintenance schedule for the P-8A (I don't)?

 

[ngatimozart]

At present we have is six Orions that average output of 2400 tasking hours per annum or just 400 hours per airframe.

OTOH using average utilisation rates coming out of JAX the P-8A for example is providing an output of 700 hours per airframe and a design expectation of up to 1000 hours per annum.

Thus on that basis alone using the lower 700 hour figure if four P-8A's are selected they are able to generate 400 tasking hours more per annum (viz 2800 output hours) than the current six P-3K2 or in other words it would take seven P-3K's to do the job of four P-8A's.

Then factor in what the P-8A can surveil within each tasked hour - the early studies out of JAX on increment 1 were that the P-8A was able to substantially increase the surveilled area of the legacy P-3C. Also add into the mix that the beauty of using the worlds most common commercial jet platform with dramatically better availability rates compared to 50 year old legacy aircraft.

Then bring into the play that the King Air based MEPT/AWT solution will provide for SR-MPS a new and additional capability to supplement the current P-3K2 role and if for example the KC-46 is selected as the B757 replacement then you also have a multi-mission platform (having numerous other potential synergies with the P-8A that we have discussed previously) that is production wired with IBR2 tactical terminal therefore offering a further adjunct capability to take on some aspects with respect to long range SAR / Surveillance of the P-8A role if necessitated. If the tactical aspect of the FAMC solution includes the SAR / ISR 'desirables' as noted in its RFI then the capability scope is even widened further giving the air component commender the flexibility to efficiently allocate tasking resources to meet output demand scenarios.

All air forces in the 21st Century see the sense in approaching capability solutions from a blended spectrum approach and not from the traditional platform - numbers - mission paradigm to achieve their outputs. Therefore numbers of a specific platform are not the full story.

Whilst I agree with 95% of that, there is a point where numbers do actually matter and can make a significant difference to fleet availability rates. Whilst other platforms may be able to cover and / or enhance some of the roles, they don't have the kit to cover all of the roles; hence yes a KC-46 will be of use in a SAR as a comms / data node / refueling asset, however it doesn't have the kit to find the missing target apart from the Mk-1 eyeball. Therefore 4 airframes is cutting it very fine; maybe too fine, especially as the production run will end when all orders are completed, which is sooner rather than later, unlike the P-3 production run that ran for quite a long period and through 3 main variants. Remember that unlike the P-3, the majority of the upgrades on the P-8 will be software driven not hardware, hence aircraft won't require replacing as often as they have been historically.

Addendum: The main reasons for the low number of tasking hours are budgetary (not enough money) and conservation of the P3K2 hours to ensure ongoing serviceability until replacement.

 

[MrConservative]

Whilst I agree with 95% of that, there is a point where numbers do actually matter and can make a significant difference to fleet availability rates. Whilst other platforms may be able to cover and / or enhance some of the roles, they don't have the kit to cover all of the roles; hence yes a KC-46 will be of use in a SAR as a comms / data node / refueling asset, however it doesn't have the kit to find the missing target apart from the Mk-1 eyeball.

NG, I was not saying that numbers do not matter only that they are not the full story or way to approach an entire capability solution.

Incidentally, the KC-46 is pre-wired so as other sensors can be installed very simply as that was the point of its whole design philosophy which as an extension permutates across all of the DoD's air assets. There are sensors to be fitted to the Japanese aircraft that are not on the USAF for example due to the discretion of their tactical requirements. We would be no different.

Therefore 4 airframes is cutting it very fine; maybe too fine, especially as the production run will end when all orders are completed, which is sooner rather than later, unlike the P-3 production run that ran for quite a long period and through 3 main variants. Remember that unlike the P-3, the majority of the upgrades on the P-8 will be software driven not hardware, hence aircraft won't require replacing as often as they have been historically.

I would be the first to say that my preference is five and not four, however again everybody is looking at this as though the P-3 replacement is an entrapped capability in a NZ demarcated box. That we are operating this capability in isolation with no reference to what is happening across the ditch.

Addendum: The main reasons for the low number of tasking hours are budgetary (not enough money) and conservation of the P3K2 hours to ensure ongoing serviceability until replacement.

It is indeed a mix of budgets and preservation. The average fleet utilisation rates over the last 15 years are around 2200-2400 hours per annum. Most P-3's internationally are around 400 hours per annum. Certainly the ones at JAX are. However in their first couple of decades in RNZAF service getting towards 500 hours per annum from an aircraft annually was not unusual - however they did not expect in 1966 that the aircraft would last 60 years.