|
|
Post by frankly on May 15, 2017 14:32:25 GMT 12
Well, for my money, I'd like to see the SAAB investigated further It's a good option for somebody. Notwithstanding reduced growth margins and drag penalty not having a weapons bay creates. It would be ideal for a country that needed a long endurance option without the need to kill anything. SaveSave |
|
Karas
Leading Aircraftman
Posts: 8 
|
Post by Karas on May 15, 2017 16:05:28 GMT 12
|
|
Karas
Leading Aircraftman
Posts: 8
|
Post by Karas on May 15, 2017 16:22:00 GMT 12
Here is a picture I made the other day. It is 3x 1,000 nmi range increments from Auckland. Some might find it useful for quick comparisons.  |
|
|
|
Post by frankly on May 15, 2017 18:39:41 GMT 12
I am sceptical of the SAAB Swordfish in relation to specifically NZ conditions. It is seriously cramped for space. P-3s run a wide diversity of missions from dropping mail, to SAR north of the equator and surveillance inside the Antarctic circle. Operating form coral runways in the middle of nowhere with no infrastructure other than the ability to refuel to plying the iron seas of Malacca hunting for one ship in a thousand. NZ must get all these missions and more out of a P-3 replacement. The Swordfish simply isn't big enough to be flexible enough to do so many things. The project is for a maritime patrol aircraft, not a P-3 replacement. The P-3 does some tasks because it can, not because it's a core requirement. Focusing on things like dropping the occasional Minimum Aide Device and conducting a few SAR tasks does a disservice to the core military surveillance and response requirement. The ability to operate from Pacific airstrips is irrelevant if the replacement has sufficient range, endurance and transit speed to operate from Whenuapai instead. Also - Swordfish is a mission system, not an aircraft. It's currently offered fitted to two different types of aircraft. One of the aircraft, the Challenger 6000, is comparable to P-3 in size, and has significantly greater endurance. Challenger 6000 is the basis for the RAF Sentinal R1 aircraft - arguably one of the most capable ISR and battle management platforms in NATO. Worth remembering that a modern twin business jet like Challenger 6000 (or G650ER) could be expected to launch from Whenuapai, fly to Adelaide (or Honiara) and provide on-station surveillance for several hours, before flying home again. SaveSave |
|
|
|
Post by foxcover on May 15, 2017 19:01:06 GMT 12
Well, for my money, I'd like to see the SAAB investigated further It's a good option for somebody. Notwithstanding reduced growth margins and drag penalty not having a weapons bay creates. It would be ideal for a country that needed a long endurance option without the need to kill anything. SaveSaveWhy can't it kill anything? |
|
|
|
Post by frankly on May 15, 2017 19:41:57 GMT 12
Why can't it kill anything? It can, but the drag penalties of external carriage severely limit range. Fine for the Kattegat or the Med, not so great for mid-Atlantic or North Pacific SaveSave |
|
Hoffy
Pilot Officer
Posts: 48
|
Post by Hoffy on May 17, 2017 20:41:36 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 18, 2017 20:38:36 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by 11SQNLDR on May 18, 2017 21:45:57 GMT 12
Great news, hope it all goes ahead. The video was good to watch but painful to listen to thanks to Robocop  |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 18, 2017 21:51:43 GMT 12
It had a British accent so more like Robobobby |
|
|
|
Post by beagle on May 19, 2017 1:38:08 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by horicle on May 20, 2017 17:28:26 GMT 12
P-1 V’s P-8, its gone to bed but it won’t sleep.
The requirement for a replacement MPA for the RNZAF has no perfect line for line comparison with the major countries that have opted for the P-8.
None of the three main P-8 buyers have the same SAR need as us. The USA has the Coast Guard, the RAAF has the AMSA (Australian Maritime Safety Authority) and the UK has Her Majesty’s Coastguard which contracts to Bristow Helicopters (1.6 billion Pounds per Year starting in 2015) to provide the necessary costal SAR. Just how far out they go I don’t know.
In New Zealand’s case how many years have we been talking about setting up a ‘short’ range SAR/Maritime service. Some times it is to be a new RNZAF unit and sometimes a civil/coastguard style operation. Needless to say it has never got the accountants interest. With the financial burden of replacing the P-3 and C-130 fleets in a short time window the addition of a smaller (perhaps common maritime/transport) aircraft could mean a reduction in the main buy. It gets complicated.
To do SAR and serious Maritime Patrol I put my money on the ‘Jet Orion” (yes, it’s got four engines).
None of the three main P-8 buyers have the same Civil Assistance role as we do. When disaster strikes our Island neighbours we need to get there quickly (any jet will do) and it is always a good idea to pick up the local Ratu/dissaster co-ordinator and do the aerial inspection. Being able to do this depends a lot on how much runway you need.
Guess where my money is going.
The argument that the P-8 is a more suitable ‘serious’ MPA than the P-1 gets a bit of traction because of the RAF selection. I think the differences here are too small to be a decision watershed and we can only hope we never need to find out. But it does lead to the commonality statement. I think some are confusing the term. To me it is more about using our equipment and tactics in a common task with others equipment and tactics. Like we did with the A-4 fleet. The maritime situation is no different. Fincastle was P-3’s, Nimrods and Aurora’s (historically even Sunderlands (1964, we won), Shackletons, Neptunes and Argus’s). For commonality/inter-operatability you don’t need the same fleet/equipment. In fact different equipment can often give a better outcome.
All I am trying to do is set the scene for the inevitable announcement. Due to the new world trade situation (thanks to the Donald) NZ is moving closer to Japan. The just completed trade visit to Japan by the PM shows how serious we are taking the TPP situation. Just what our government will do to gain better terms for our food produce imports into Japan is going to be a factor in any purchases we make. The proposals made by the recent Sept 2016 visit by the Japanese regarding the KHI contenders were only a start. Noted the US of A has approved the sale of four P-8’s. Just an administrative step, and if we decided to get five (or three, say the price just went up) the whole process would have to start all over again.
|
|
chis73
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 87
|
Post by chis73 on May 21, 2017 21:55:52 GMT 12
Well said Horicle, I agree with just about all of your points, except perhaps the very last one (I believe the US approval is for up to 4 aircraft, not exclusively 4). As time has gone on, I have become more and more firmly convinced that the P-8 is not the aircraft for us. People talk about being inter-operable & concurrent with the US & Australia; we "have to have P-8" to achieve that. I have to ask:- how long will that last? The first update? NZ's per capita defence budget is half of Australia's, perhaps a quarter of the US. The history of the RNZAF P-3 shows that it has never been able to keep up with with US (or even Australian) upgrades. I imagine ISR & electronic warfare is probably even more dynamic technology-wise than ASW ever was. For those hoping that the P-1 gets the nod, like me, there was some encouraging news this week. Buried in the joint statement from Bill English & Shinzo Abe was a point (#11, see link here) about continuing work on "acquisition and cross-servicing" in Defence. What, apart from the P-1 & C-2, are we likely to be buying from Japan? To me, this indicates no decision on P-8 (or P-1) has yet been made. Finally, here is a nice youtube video featuring the P-1 with some nice internal shots (and it even has a Top Gun-esque guitar solo). It certainly answers one of the questions I had about the P-1 (see page 2 of this thread). The avionics and mission systems have english language interfaces. |
|
|
|
Post by kiwiredley on May 22, 2017 18:27:04 GMT 12
Nice video of the P-1
Just recently on the Australian Aviation Magazine site there was an article about an Australian P-8A participating in a SAR situation, it was on a training flight and responded to a Mayday from a vessel in distress.It provided assistance in relaying position and ontime information to the AMSA. It was interesting to note in the article that there is a current tender out from the ADF to provide a SAR Rescue Kit to enable the Aircraft to drop life rafts and supplies. Kit delivery starting 1st Qtr 2018 so at present the Australian P-8A have not got a complete SAR package, not sure if that is because they decided to develop their own and so didn't take something from Boeing or that the basic P-8A specification doesn't include dropping of survival equipment on a SAR mission
|
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on May 22, 2017 20:16:01 GMT 12
Here is a picture I made the other day. It is 3x 1,000 nmi range increments from Auckland. Some might find it useful for quick comparisons. Given the need to extend Whenuapai airfield if P8 is adopted and the lack of support in the earlier base future review (http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/whenuapai/bridgeport-report-range-of-views.pdf ) the chance of getting approval to extend the runway appears slim and could still be in the courts as the P8 is due to leave service. I suggest you should move your centre south to Ohakea as 5 Squadron will need to move. Paul |
|
|
|
Post by dutchkiwi on May 23, 2017 7:30:09 GMT 12
Still... after all reading about the P-8A I think more and more that the Poseidon is not the right aircraft for the RNZAF. It's far too expensive to call a P-8 to search for a missing fishermen from Tonga (or any other nation) and in my own humble opinion for the SAR part of 5 Squadron it's much better to have a MPA version of the C-295. Although a mixed fleet of P-8 (and a smaller aircraft) is far from realistic, a transport fleet with A-400 and C-295 could be a solution. The Portuguese Air Force operate both; transport and MPA versions.
If they decide to have P-8, I expext to see a two type purchase for the C-130 replacement.
Cheerzzz
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on May 23, 2017 12:21:48 GMT 12
Given the need to extend Whenuapai airfield if P8 is adopted and the lack of support in the earlier base future review (http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/whenuapai/bridgeport-report-range-of-views.pdf ) the chance of getting approval to extend the runway appears slim and could still be in the courts as the P8 is due to leave service. I suggest you should move your centre south to Ohakea as 5 Squadron will need to move. Paul That report was from 2004 and has the decision to close Whenuapai overridden. The regeneration of infrastructure is ongoing at present (not that that has stopped base review and closure in the past!) {edit} I understand what you're getting at. Don't know how much was an opportunistic grab by local government supported by an apathetic central government at the time, and written in the context of a closure decision already made. |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on May 23, 2017 14:33:54 GMT 12
Clearly the RNZAF thinks the P-8 is the better aircraft as they've asked for it. I'm more than happy to believe they know what their requirements are.
Being part of worldwide pool with multiple operators will helps the costs of upgrades down (hence why the RAAF are sticking to the US configurations for the MH-60R, C-17, P-8 , Rhino and growler) ... not going ahead with them pushes the ownership costs up over time when you end up with a orphan (like the RAAF Classic hornets found out) . And just like the P-1 is now.
I'd be curious to see operating costs for the P-1, noting it has twice as many engines. Whilst that would mean exactly double the costs, it will certainly increase engine costs over the life of the platform.
Finally, and again, many people here seem to think that SAR is a core requirement for the RNZAF MPA..... I argue it's far from it. Can it do it, sure. Should it, perhaps, but it would be better if there was another government agency that did the majority of it.
The P-8 isn't just an MPA is a really capable ISR platform.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmac on May 23, 2017 14:58:02 GMT 12
So 4 airframes and a limited landing ability in the islands, any extended search (running for a couple of days) is going to all consuming of the fleet.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on May 23, 2017 18:08:48 GMT 12
The big problem with the P8 is that only two NZ runways are long enough to operate it effectively- Christchurch and Mangere. The Aussies are extending Edinburgh and Townsville to 2800 metres. They are not doing so for fun. You will lose something like 4 tonne of fuel and/or payload out of Ohakea and 8.0 tonne out of Whenuapai with their current runways. Not much point buying these if they cannot carry their payload far enough to do a mission? Of course you could buy the aircraft and once delivered ring up the PM and say we need another 800 metres of runway at Whenuapai now please! $500 million should do it!
The other issue is of course price. The P1 should be much cheaper than the P8 which means you can either buy more or save the cash for a rainy day or operating costs.
Even the P1 will probably be affected by runway length although detail is hard to come by.
|
|
