FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
Argentina probably isn't as interested as you thought they might have been three days ago, I guess
(deal was made a week ago)
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
(deal was made a week ago)
Why would we try to offload them to Argentina? Ours despite being called P-3K2 are still P-3Bs and NZ4201 - 05 were the first five P-3s ever exported to any country by the US. NZ4206 was an ex RAAF P-3B acquired during the mid 1980s because the NZG found that five P-3B were struggling to meet their policy requirements.
Yep, but they are like grandads old axe which had 3 new handles and a new head. there is very little original on them. after 2 major systems upgrades, a ASW upgrade only a few years ago and a structural rebuild in the early 2000's There was very little difference mechanically and structurally between the B and C apart from some wing skins that where slightly thicker.
They are for all intents and purposes, both structurally and system wise 20 or less years old.
Wasn't it just an attrition frame that was purchased because Australia was getting rid of theirs so we were able to pick it up for a song? Aqquire end of line Bs to avoid costly Cs is a real money saver.... Who knows maybe in another 20 years we can just buy another P8 or 2 off Australia as attrition frames when they no doubt upgrade to the P9 and we can score another deal to last us the stock RNZAF 40-50 year cycle?
No, I was at a briefing when the purchase was anounced ( not to the press) and the reasoning was that it required 6 airframes to keep one on station 24/7 at a certain distance from base. I cannot remember what the distance was. 06 was a latter B with the thicker wing skins than our earlier B's it's being the same as the C's.
So if that was the case then what has changed? Maybe they don't keep 1 on station 24/7 at a certain distance from base anymore or have they moved the distance??
Haha and it took them 20 years to figure this all out?
I think that treasury got in the way. Also we must remember that John Key, PM at the time that the requirement was drawn up was adverse to capital spending. Treasuries excuse was that 4 new P8's could do the same as 6 old P3's. the question also then is what happens when the P8's get older? My personal view is that we need enough to keep our half of the Tasman sea secure for marine transport as a minimum.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
So (ideally) we perhaps need another 4 (8 in total) as a minimum, assuming 6 still needed for 1 on station 24/7, leaving 2 for attrition/training/ maintenance cycles? Treasury's world view in the 2010's will be brought up to date with the strategic outlook of the 2020's/2030's etc.
UK bought 9 (which seems to be on the light side as well), be curious as to what the rationale was numbers wise. Perhaps that could guide NZ's fleet outcome?
Our P-8's cost approx NZ$400m ea, so potentially affordable if future funding/prioritisation allows (including increased operational and support funding). Of course allowance for air and ground crews also required (although RNZAF suffers the least of the 3 services when it comes to retention issues and is mostly manageable and much is made of OEM support).
Granted long range maritime UAV's would be supplementary. But they can't keep track of or prosecute underwater objects of interest. With the proliferation of submarines in the Pacific (there are approx 130 CCP/NK subs in the Pacific, assuming the figures are accurate), let alone Russian, which is much greater than the Soviet Pacific fleet sub numbers during the Cold War when the requirement was for 6x P-3's!
Submarines by Country 2023 - Wisevoter
There are currently 42 countries in the world that have submarines as a part of their naval fleet. These countries range from superpowers like the United States and China, to smaller nations like Cuba and Myanmar. While submarines are used for a variety of purposes, they are primarily used for...
wisevoter.com
These sub numbers also suggest RNZN still needs highly capable future ASW Frigate replacements, rather than a "tier 2" compromise to reduce the number of hull types?
Last edited:
Don't forget the role the EMAC project was supposed to play in all this... the EMAC project was designed to take up a number of the lower-end tasks (SAR, fisheries & customs patrol work etc) that would allow the P8 to be focused on core military taskings and the longer range EMAC taskings. Also don't forget to factor in (to a lower extent) the benefits of moving to a much more capable flight sim (& maintenance one for that matter).
So 4 x P8 was in theory, AIUI, part of a wider package to include EMAC... no doubt that was part of the justification in numbers. Along comes COVID & a change of Govt (Ron Mark gone) and hey-presto any prior agreements get quickly torn-up. Agree 4 x P8 should be 5 + EMAC. Hopefully the new defence review & more bullish outlook will push EMAC to the forefront again... but then given the likely change of Govt back to one desperate for spending cuts doesn't bode well for EMAC.
Yes, the P-8 acquisition was originally Part One of the Future Surveillance Capability (FASC) Project with EMAC being Part Two. However since the change of govt in 2017 the FASC appears to have been side-lined and the P-8A acquisition done a separate project. Same with the Future Air Mobility Capability (FAMC) Project.
The way they are structing the EMAC program would mean it was of very limited use in the event of a conflict in our area. I personally think that the number of P8's should be in the region of 7 to 8 given the minimum area we need to control. I think that in the event of conflict we need the ability to have 2 on station 24/7.
The 6 included the need for training and maintenance. The need for training on the actual aircraft is largely been taken over by simulators
The UK's area of responsibility is not that large, as the eastern Atlantic is also covered by its other European NATO partners. So you need to add in their ASW assets as well
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
difference with NZ and Japan is population, GDP... and there is much much more contested waters and higher chance of subs in your waters that are not yours compared to NZI remember as a kid reading about P-3 operators and being surprised and confused about NZ having 5 P-3s and Japan having ~100 P-3s. I thought, two similarly sized countries both with large maritime areas. A slight discrepancy in numbers?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
There was also a rather different experience in wartime with enemy submarines. The USN Pacific sub force in WWII inflicted considerable damage on both the IJN and Japan's merchant marine. As a result, Japan has since developed and maintained a large and skilled ASW capability.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Surprising ratio, 20:1, a significant difference and although GDP, population, and threat environment are big factors, IMO NZ needed more P-3s and maybe Japan didn’t need quite as many.
Shanesworld
Well-Known Member
My understanding was that 5/6 P-3's was a minimum number generated from treasury after ignoring defence advice when we still had a strike wing, macchis and andovers and that it was zombie like carried forward.
If you subtract those other elements, look at our reliance at merchant shipping and distances, the worsening regional picture and dont rely on playing political ball to secure a career after mil contract completion then I think 12 is the number. Along with about a hundred nsm's.
I totally agree the number has to be increased, but my concern is also the ability to provide enough fuel to keep them aloft, at about 30k lt full load out we would need alot more storage than current , noting if the requirement to have one or two may mean the stream of 175 tankers a year feeding NZ stops or slows significantly
Yeah, I'm not convinced the obvious explanations fully explain such a wild difference in numbers. I suspect there is a "keep Kawasaki in work" aspect as well.
Sadly, there is no sugar coating the current RNZAF ORBAT.
After decades of self induced delusion and 'hope' as our best defence, the country finds itself in an era of strategic competition where wolfs will take the dishonorably stupid and our only ally is more aware and embarrassed for us than we are. Four reconnaissance aircraft being the total sum of NZ air power is beyond pathetic. Collectively we have managed to denude our warrior class to nought, forget the lessons of history, and smugly wallow in our isolated hermit politics.
For those who think this is hyperbole, take another look at how dangerous our current situation is and then ask if our politicians and MoD have the with-all to comprehend and act decisively? Particularly after the last four decades of a clown show.
After decades of self induced delusion and 'hope' as our best defence, the country finds itself in an era of strategic competition where wolfs will take the dishonorably stupid and our only ally is more aware and embarrassed for us than we are. Four reconnaissance aircraft being the total sum of NZ air power is beyond pathetic. Collectively we have managed to denude our warrior class to nought, forget the lessons of history, and smugly wallow in our isolated hermit politics.
For those who think this is hyperbole, take another look at how dangerous our current situation is and then ask if our politicians and MoD have the with-all to comprehend and act decisively? Particularly after the last four decades of a clown show.