Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Novascotiaboy]

GF I agree wholeheartedly with all that you have stated and understand the dynamics but the reality of the situation is what is likely to play a bigger role in the final decision when that time comes. As much as there is a military necessity in the eyes of those in uniform it will be the elected ones who make the final decision.

Looking at a recent news article about the Kapiti expressway I noted the NZ taxpayer invested $630 million to complete just 18 km of highway. It comes down to priorities.

Canada like NZ generally punches far above its weight when involved in coalition operations and its people in uniform are its greatest assets respected far and wide as some of the best warriors anywhere. But when it comes to hard resources to do the job high end military hardware typically is not in abundance as desired by the military. The ACF is an example as is the reduction in the frigate force to only two hulls.

From my perspective using historical examples I do not expect the NZG to fund the transition from legacy P3 operations to the current high altitude P8 and UAV program. I am a platform centred enthusiast. All the bits that make up the platform to do its job is technically beyond my education. I have learned much from many on this forum who have experience in these fields. At the end of the day it's the platform that carries those in uniform into situations that we the citizen generally don't appreciate the sacrifice that those who serve give for our protection.

In the end I see a Brazilian / Japanese solution to the FAMC / FASC replacements because the two contractors have a bond through production of components and design. With that said I expect five KC390, five P1 and three C2 aircraft in NZ's future. The timelines work for delivery and production slots. Like the F35 being a 5th generation fighter not every nation needs the first line of technology. Operating a fleet of P1 in the same way that the RNZAF always has will be the main reason for its selection.

Maybe I am wrong but I believe I am realistic in my thoughts. At the end of the process a beer budget will play more of a role in the decision over champagne dreams.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Maybe I am wrong but I believe I am realistic in my thoughts. At the end of the process a beer budget will play more of a role in the decision over champagne dreams.

the irony of course is that RNZAF would be better off with a BAMS solution - in fact she's the classic example of how BAMS would be a better solution on a tight budget

if NZ heads down the Kawasaki path then a flight of P1's and Mariners as a mix makes some sense

The Mariner was assessed as a RAAF/BPC selection against Global Hawk. Fundamentally Mariner ticked all the boxes except that its flight profile was less useful against a P8 than with a P3. As we were migrating to P8 it made no sense to continue looking at it as it would have broken the synchronised swimming model

I hate theoretical force discussions as they can get sidetracked really quickly and end up with a corresponding divorce from reality - but BPC in absolute terms were basically a coastguard force model and are the closest thing to NZDef from an air and maritime surveillance/ISR role perspective

It's a pity that the BAMS modelling is not in the unclassified domain as it is an eye opening document when you start looking at manpower/manned/conops and manpower/mixed/conops

In NZ's case they end up with broader capability against the mission sets.

still, but, whatever, lateral thinking on force development is the first thing that gets killed when budget is the primary driver as it causes everyone to step back from the art of the possible even though the same amount of money is in play

you end up with a force that can do the job, but not a force ready for future proofing within that selections sustainment cycle

 

[alexsa]

Canada like NZ generally punches far above its weight when involved in coalition operations and its people in uniform are its greatest assets respected far and wide as some of the best warriors anywhere. But when it comes to hard resources to do the job high end military hardware typically is not in abundance as desired by the military. The ACF is an example as is the reduction in the frigate force to only two hulls. .

For context, Canada has a population of around 36 million and a much wider tax base than either Australia (moving toward 24M) or NZ (around 5M). I do note Canada have engaged using air power against ISIS and engaged in Afganistan.

They have been very active in the past as well but the discussion is based on the present.

Using Australia as a benchmark it would be fair to say the ADF has engaged to the same degree (if not more if) so it really depends who you compare against when considering that you are punching above your weight.

Essentially it is easy to claim that Canada punches above its weight ..... but compared to whom and how do you identify a relevant peer country to compare against.

Personally I find the comment (even when used by Australian politicians and senior ADF personal) to be a pointless measure. The only comparison that has any validity is the strategic national needs combined with a realistic long term assessment of likely threats.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Well said GF.

 

[MrConservative]

NZ like Australia runs capability vignettes when they do a platform selection

There is a whole big table devoted solely to dual hat capabilities and scenarios...... and the assessment teams and the uniforms attack that with some verve as in tight budgets that can often be a key element in getting the support of the GOTD in signing off

Yep. And the present GOTD in NZ is running its capability vignettes on platform selection by its OZ partners for their input and our joint integration with them - since DWP10 this has been more pronounced than ever before.

We don't do acquisition projects in isolation without significant reference to and input of Australia and other trusted partners. The CDR agreement between OZ & NZ is a priority policy action when it comes to our force structure and planning.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Nova, regards to the current production rates of the A400 M id b concerned they wouldnt be able to deliver in time, even though its has a lot going for it capability wise over the others and would be my preference.

So C2 for strategic and KC 390 for tactical in those numbers would seem a fair trade off, given Nz past history id also fear a A400 M, and P8 solution for MPA would mean a cut in numbers, especially with Def Min Gerry Brownelee saying four P8 to replace 6 P3k2. Using that logic that the extra lift of the A400 M will mean you only need 3 to do the job of 5 Hercules.

 

[t68]

Given that to the best of my knowledge AusGov has still only approved the 1st 12of 15 P8's for the RAAF, could there be by both goverments possably be waiting for NZ to make a final determination so that a large order is placed between our nations to try and get the best deal possible, would that have any bearing on timing from both sides of the ditch?

 

[kiwipatriot69]

That would in hindsight sem like a really good idea to do another joint purchase, but timing is everything, we expect have ours replaced by 2025, doesnt Austrailia want thiers much sooner?

 

[ngatimozart]

That would in hindsight sem like a really good idea to do another joint purchase, but timing is everything, we expect have ours replaced by 2025, doesnt Austrailia want thiers much sooner?

What difference would that make? Just put the Kiwi ones at the end of the ANZAC run.

It takes time to induct new capabilities and if the first Kiwi P-8 arrives earlier that is of no great issue from the RNZAF POV. They don't have to receive all of them at the same time. From the political POV there maybe self inflicted imagined problems.

Secondly, I would not discount the NZG acquiring BAMS - MQ-4C Triton, purely because of the long term cost effective capability that it would bring. They will take a long hard look at it and how it is operated by the USN and RAAF; the pros and cons, then make their decision. Just saying that they won't acquire it purely on cost is ill informed. They have not yet made public their policy on RPAS and that is a policy that they will fully develop over time. They will be cautious about this.

Thirdly, there is and I keep repeating NZ$20 billion set aside as capital expenditure for new acquisitions for the NZDF. Of that, the FASC does not break the bank. Based on publically available figures, an acquisition of five P-8 would cost approximately NZ$1.2 - 1.5 billion all up. An acquisition of four P-8 would cost approximately NZ$0.75 - 1.2 billion all up. Three MQ-4C Triton and the ground station would cost approximately NZ$1.7 - 2.5 billion. However I believe that by the time we were to acquire the Triton the cost may come down a bit.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thirdly, there is and I keep repeating NZ$20 billion set aside as capital expenditure for new acquisitions for the NZDF. Of that, the FASC does not break the bank. Based on publically available figures, an acquisition of five P-8 would cost approximately NZ$1.2 - 1.5 billion all up. An acquisition of four P-8 would cost approximately NZ$0.75 - 1.2 billion all up. Three MQ-4C Triton and the ground station would cost approximately NZ$1.7 - 2.5 billion. However I believe that by the time we were to acquire the Triton the cost may come down a bit.

and if you go down the Mariner path its cheaper still - and you can stick rude sticks on it as well

RAAF elected to emphasise ISR over an armed unmanned combat capability due to having other options within likely range

 

[MrConservative]

I will play devils advocate and act the role of the politician left to digest the recent comments regarding P8.

"It is said that the P8 is a "battle space manager", but NZ has no direct threat, and NZ has no significant offensive combat capability so why would NZ need this type of aircraft to coordinate all these assets".

I believe Rob C has the right view of this process. The P8 is too much of an aircraft with all of its capabilities that support other systems that NZ never will have. The writing is on the wall if the reports are correct that Embraer has been asked to formulate a proposal using the E190-E2 platform as a FASC contender. NZDF lacks the depth in size; people, platforms, $$$$, to make the dramatic shift in operating process to make a P8 a viable option for NZ's typical requirements.

There is a fundamental error you are making in your analysis and now might be a time to explain it further.

The broader rationale of NZ Defence has two essentially spheres – firstly NZDF activities partnering with other government agencies generally within the EEZ – the inner sphere and secondly NZDF activities beyond that in an outer sphere whereby we principally engage with Australia but also the UK, US and Singapore. This dualism is exists on one hand due to NZ's location and on the other being a smallish yet prosperous liberal democracy with an internationalist political and commercial outlook. But nevertheless the NZ-OZ relationship is the most important and essentially an entre into those others.

The assumption being made by some is that when the NZDF operates in that outer sphere it is doing so unilaterally – this is not the case. NZ has been in a long standing albeit junior partnership with Australia. Because it does indeed lack the depth in size; the numbers of personnel, the broad range of platforms - is the very reason why it hardly ever has strayed into non-synergetic platform selections with respect to the ADF. And at the higher political level there is a clear understanding that collectively they add weight together – the Closer Defence Relations Agreement and its pursuit of inter-operability underpins this.

Now if NZ had a totally different worldview to Australia and no formal relationship toward other FVEY’s partners et al, then we very may well buy other platforms from outside the FVEY-NATO nexus. But that as GF has sagely noted that would cost us. We would spend more and be dramatically less effective and the flip side also plays out – so would the ADF lose out in certain areas. The relationship would suffer.

This is where in certain cases that some functional systems are chosen because they truly complement and strengthen what both countries can do when they work together in that outer sphere - from HADR, UN Chp VI through to UNSC Chapter VII scenarios and through to the kind of serious conflict situations we both would always seek to either collectively deter or at least be able to survive when operating within an even greater theatre level scenario.

Now from that starting point then examine the FASC Concept of Operations and over-arching capability subsets sort by the NZ Govt or indeed any other NZDF acquisition project such as WGS-9, Networked Army, Anzac Upgrade for example (and please don't point out that it is not exactly the same in upgrade fit-out – we all know that and can do without pedantry), that has a tangible role significance in the outer sphere – because that is where the policy and acquisition filtration process leads to next.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

MrC

I am skeptical of the NZG being overly concerned with commonality of platforms, weapons or systems given the acquisitions made to date. Besides the MAN trucks what platform or system is the same or even similar?

In the myopic view of a politician looking at the $$$ and whether he or she can get re-elected a big airplane that either carries cargo or looks for missing fishermen is of little interest to them.

The concern for data management I believe is being overstated in order to acquire top tier assets when the next level will do the job. The same battle is being had in the RCAF thread regarding F35. As good as it supposedly is now I don't think it will retain that status and at the end of the day what second tier countries do with their combat aircraft is not what the US, UK, Russia do with theirs.

We have to look realistically at this. For the past 50 has the RNZAF fired upon or acted aggressively with air power? I realize that this could change but the odds are that the status quo will prevail for the next 50 years. Now I am not saying disarm and not have a capability but it needs to be reflective of the threat.

If 99% of the FASC fleets airtime is spent doing training or providing governmentbsupport via presence patrols and SAR then is the P8 really the best choice? From purely this perspective a G6000 with a Swordfish package would suffice but I believe the warfighting abilities of a dedicated military aircraft like the P1 offers more flexibility. If the need to prosecute a target arrives I am quite certain that the systems on a P1 will receive data from the multitude of other sources.

The P8 is an asset that operates opposite to what NZ has been doing and will continue to need to do for the foreseeable future. For all the effort that has been put into the P1 by the Japanese I am sure they have considered their own relationship with the US forces posted in the area and equipped with the P8 now and in the future.

I read an article this week that I cannot find now that quoted a USN Admiral stating the need to use the right platform for the job. The F35 in his mind has a role and its at the pointy end. In benign environments fourth generation aircraft are more than sufficient for the environment thus saving the west and tear on the F35.

The same can be said for using P8. Those with all the supporting structures or threat environments should have access to this capability. But those that don't can get the job done with lesser systems. A look at Italy and its acquisition of the ATR72 as a replacement for their Atlantics is a good reference. Norway is not a suitable example for NZ because Norway is at the frontline of data acquisition on the Russian navy operating from the Kola.

I don't expect a P8 supporting a maple leaf ever. But there will be something in the air doing the job with advanced systems and sensors that can hopefully put a hole in those that fail to comply.

Whatever system is acquired I am certain that it will not suit everyone and it will not be what we all agree with.

 

[Rob c]

Still some interesting traffic both inbound and out bound from Ohakea, just had an inbound C17 low over the house, very impressive except for the sound effects, simply not up to the standards of old.

 

[alexsa]

MrC

I am skeptical of the NZG being overly concerned with commonality of platforms, weapons or systems given the acquisitions made to date. Besides the MAN trucks what platform or system is the same or even similar?

I hope you are kidding or are you being mischievous

NH90 - same
ANZAC Frigate, common hull and a lot of the equipment remains common.
Rifles - NZ are phasing out the current service rifle but the replacement is one used in Australian service by some elements
ATGM - same
Mortars - some
105 guns - were the same as Australia noting these have since been replaced (in fact the last for Australian 105mm ammo was sent to NZ in support of these guns..... yes we also produce ammo used by NZ)
UNIMOGs - being phased out in Australia but we both have them
SOG vehicles - similar on the same platform (Supercat ...... being built in Australia)
LAVs - you could say similar with the NZ ones being a latter iteration
HMGs - same
MMGs - same

................. and so forth. So apart from the the MAN trucks there is a lot of common kit and that is before you get into radios and supporting gear.

This sort of mindless and misinformed commentary certainly does not help give weight to your arguments.

 

[Rob c]

MrC

I am skeptical of the NZG being overly concerned with commonality of platforms, weapons or systems given the acquisitions made to date. Besides the MAN trucks what platform or system is the same or even similar?

In the myopic view of a politician looking at the $$$ and whether he or she can get re-elected a big airplane that either carries cargo or looks for missing fishermen is of little interest to them.

The concern for data management I believe is being overstated in order to acquire top tier assets when the next level will do the job. The same battle is being had in the RCAF thread regarding F35. As good as it supposedly is now I don't think it will retain that status and at the end of the day what second tier countries do with their combat aircraft is not what the US, UK, Russia do with theirs.

We have to look realistically at this. For the past 50 has the RNZAF fired upon or acted aggressively with air power? I realize that this could change but the odds are that the status quo will prevail for the next 50 years. Now I am not saying disarm and not have a capability but it needs to be reflective of the threat.

If 99% of the FASC fleets airtime is spent doing training or providing governmentbsupport via presence patrols and SAR then is the P8 really the best choice? From purely this perspective a G6000 with a Swordfish package would suffice but I believe the warfighting abilities of a dedicated military aircraft like the P1 offers more flexibility. If the need to prosecute a target arrives I am quite certain that the systems on a P1 will receive data from the multitude of other sources.

The P8 is an asset that operates opposite to what NZ has been doing and will continue to need to do for the foreseeable future. For all the effort that has been put into the P1 by the Japanese I am sure they have considered their own relationship with the US forces posted in the area and equipped with the P8 now and in the future.

I read an article this week that I cannot find now that quoted a USN Admiral stating the need to use the right platform for the job. The F35 in his mind has a role and its at the pointy end. In benign environments fourth generation aircraft are more than sufficient for the environment thus saving the west and tear on the F35.

The same can be said for using P8. Those with all the supporting structures or threat environments should have access to this capability. But those that don't can get the job done with lesser systems. A look at Italy and its acquisition of the ATR72 as a replacement for their Atlantics is a good reference. Norway is not a suitable example for NZ because Norway is at the frontline of data acquisition on the Russian navy operating from the Kola.

I don't expect a P8 supporting a maple leaf ever. But there will be something in the air doing the job with advanced systems and sensors that can hopefully put a hole in those that fail to comply.

Whatever system is acquired I am certain that it will not suit everyone and it will not be what we all agree with.

The P8 would make a fine addition the the RNZAF, but I don't think it is as hot a favorite as some others and that other possibilities must be considered seriously and not dismissed out of hand.
Some of the evidence for this is.
The FASC does say "The same concept" and while Mr C made a good case for the direction the RNZAF is heading, the simple fact is that the P3K2 is still conceptually in the low slow category.
Embraer appears to to have been invited to submit a E190 proposal and are talking up a KC390 proposal.As they would have access to the confidential RFI, I don't think they would waste their time and money on a hopeless cause.
The Japanese have said that they felt they where on a level playing field for the first time against the P8 and they would also have had access to the confidential RFI to make this judgement.
I also think that the P1 has been underrated and may hve more capability than some think. They (the Japanese) have said that it was seriously considered in the AEW role instead of buying more Hawkeyes and is a good back up to them due to their excellent radar and the use of AI in the TAC control giving them a good area control ability.
Some of the anti P1 , pro P8 talk has been based on assumptions and not fact, as the Japanese are more reticent at devolving information publicly than the US, who like to talk things up.
The Statement by Nova of the NZG not being overly concerned with commonality of platforms, seems to be true as it has been burnt in the past a few times and NZD appears to be stepping out on its own more lately to get what "IT" wants.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Alexsa

Purchases made 30 years ago are not relevant.

Sorry Mr C but I must. Other than the steel of the hull the ANZACS are or will be different in anti air weapons and combat systems, helicopter and lack of harpoon SSM. Enough said.

The NH90's in NZ are not the same model. Different specs.
Javelin is an almost western standard
The ASLAV and the NZLAV are a generation apart though still of the same lineage.
Yes the SF Vehicles are the same, all 13 of them once they arrive
The rifles fire the same caliber, 5.56 mm. LM AR style vs F88
There is only one western HMG available.
The Australian Army regular artillery units field 155mm M777

NZ had the chance to acquire C130J when Australia did but chose to decline.
NZ chose the T6 just as Australia decided upon the PC21
NZ chose AW109 just as Australia chose EC 135
NZ chose to pass up C17
NZ chose HK AGL while Australia has chosen the Mk 47 American AGL

NZ chose SH2Gi while Australia acquired Romeos
NZ chose Project Protector vessels instead of Armindal at the least
NZ chose Mistral while Australia had RBS 70
NZ chose HHI for its tanker while Australia chose Cantanabria AOR
NZ chose Pinzgauer while Australia chose G wagon
NZ chose Bennelli shotgun while Australia had Remington 870

I think the reality is that there is little commonality.

 

[MrConservative]

Novascotiaboy:

You are mistaken again in the context of main defence articles having to be the same – I noted we don't do non-synergetic platform selections with respect to working with the ADF. Big difference!

When we buy defence articles do you seriously think that we do not have exhaustive discussions and ignore the advice and input of the ADF - DMO with respect to interoperability when we work with them?

We do. That is the reality. That is the lens through which all acquisitions are evaluated particularly those whose role can be utilised / dual hatted in the regional / global context.

 

[MrConservative]

The FASC does say "The same concept" and while Mr C made a good case for the direction the RNZAF is heading, the simple fact is that the P3K2 is still conceptually in the low slow category.

It does not say the same concept however much you wish it to say that.

This is what the FASC actually says in the ConOps section - emphasis highlighted:

“The operational concept for the FASC in Defence will be largely a continuation of the extant P-3K2 Orion based concept, adapted to exploit any greater platform and capability systems performance of the FASC fleet and support systems.”

“ Within the New Zealand area, FASC operations will assist with protecting New Zealand’s interests in the Exclusive Economic Zone and Southern Ocean, and contribute to security through combating terrorism and providing support to the civil power. In the broader region, the FASC will be one of the elements that will work with Australian forces to promote and maintain a cooperative approach to regional security.”

“ Deployed operations will be conducted from appropriately supported forward operating bases and, where available, will integrate with coalition or partner operations and support arrangements.”

“ In the Asia-Pacific region, the FASC will contribute to military operations and will continue to be a key Defence contribution to Five Power Defence Arrangement activities. Globally, the FASC may be used by the Government to support multilateral military operations.”

“ Where appropriate, FASC control arrangements must allow sufficient freedom of action for aircraft to contribute to a network enabled environment to allow a broader range of forces and stakeholders to operate more effectively with shared situational awareness. FASC information sharing will be accomplished using the aircrafts’ communication systems in the airborne environment and using a mission planning and analysis system in the ground environment.”

Do you realise the the flown mission profiles of the P-3K2 are different to the P-3C? There is way more to ConOps than that. $375m was not recently spend to just go low and slow.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm starting to wonder whether this has become a parallel universe

some posters need to understand that a number of people in here who are trying to assist with the big picture view actually work in the space that they are talking about

I've lost count of the number of demonstrations where I have invited entities outside of the ADO to come and get a free hands on look at tech that they wouldn't normally get to see because the circumstances of the GOTD have worked against them.

The same mistakes and commentary that I see elsewhere are now polluting this thread and are ignoring the on the ground facts that Kiwi exchange officers and staff are seeing first hand

Acquisition is no longer driven by a platform centric focus - it is and has been driven for quite a while by the capability requirement - and that all acquisitions have a critical assessment component which includes system based capabilities

any major platform acquisition is now looked at in how it integrates into the overall capability response - if its not able to be integrated with minimum grief then it starts to fail on critical assessment criteria - and heading towards being rated as an orphaned asset.

all of the combat capability scenarios that are used to assess a solution selection include critical interoperability issues, common logistics footprints that are assessed against partners. NZ staff would have been well aware of the lessons learnt out of ET in 99 and that as an example drives behaviour

Seriously when there are a number of people who have responded with actual current experience its worth listening more than its worth typing.

the platform centric responses are telling in and of themselves.

eg look at Alexas response - the issue is not about the individual weapons sets - its about commonality within a systems response

we have common weapons sets because we can then reduce the training and logistics burdens, we have exchanges to ensure we have common operational understanding, we have similar conops for same, we have common systems layouts to ease training and breed familiarity

even at the backend level which the public never see. at the moment we have kiwi requests to acquire some of our s/w so as to have common systems, again, to fast track common logistics, common training, common support. these have been Kiwi requests so as to increase commonality

the common fleet model permeates at all levels. not just weapons systems, or fleet (ie volume artifact) purchases

and if you aren't going to absorb what some of the Aussies have been gently trying to inject into the debate here, then you seriously need to pay more attention to MrC and Ngati as they are spot on in what they're trying to impart.

I'd add, when I'm articulating what the P8 can do, its not from the fanboi perspective, its about the changes that flow on just from that single platform which won't come from the other artefacts for a variety of reasons.

Ultimately, going to a less capable solution set impacts and permeates through broader capability development and will impact on NZDEF effectiveness. That's not an exageration, thats the plain simple fact about how it effects long term force (and purple force) growth and development

 

[Rob c]

It does not say the same concept however much you wish it to say that.

This is what the FASC actually says in the ConOps section - emphasis highlighted:

“The operational concept for the FASC in Defence will be largely a continuation of the extant P-3K2 Orion based concept, adapted to exploit any greater platform and capability systems performance of the FASC fleet and support systems.”

“ Within the New Zealand area, FASC operations will assist with protecting New Zealand’s interests in the Exclusive Economic Zone and Southern Ocean, and contribute to security through combating terrorism and providing support to the civil power. In the broader region, the FASC will be one of the elements that will work with Australian forces to promote and maintain a cooperative approach to regional security.”

“ Deployed operations will be conducted from appropriately supported forward operating bases and, where available, will integrate with coalition or partner operations and support arrangements.”

“ In the Asia-Pacific region, the FASC will contribute to military operations and will continue to be a key Defence contribution to Five Power Defence Arrangement activities. Globally, the FASC may be used by the Government to support multilateral military operations.”

“ Where appropriate, FASC control arrangements must allow sufficient freedom of action for aircraft to contribute to a network enabled environment to allow a broader range of forces and stakeholders to operate more effectively with shared situational awareness. FASC information sharing will be accomplished using the aircrafts’ communication systems in the airborne environment and using a mission planning and analysis system in the ground environment.”

Do you realise the the flown mission profiles of the P-3K2 are different to the P-3C? There is way more to ConOps than that. $375m was not recently spend to just go low and slow.

While I did not know the details of the P3C/P3K2 missions I would have been surprised if they had been the same. From what I understand the P1 is network enabled with Link 16 and possibly 11/22. I would also expect that the Japanese P1/P3C mission profiles would now be different due to the upgrading of the technology and also its obvious AEW attributes.
The word extant means "still in existence" and would have been carefully chosen. Words like that are not used in formal documents just to make them sound more imposing.
None of the above explains the obvious excitement about the FASC format by both Embraer and the Japanese, who would have the confidential documentation that we do not have to make their calls. They also would not waste their time and money if they did not think it was serious and the MOD would not be in the business of just releasing this document to drive the price of the P8 down as this would reflect very badly on them in the future.


This as I have said before does not rule out the P8 it simply means that it will face stiffer competition.