|
|
Post by fishing2day on Mar 1, 2018 13:54:25 GMT 12
Form should always follow function, but IMHO the P-8 got it the wrong way round. Because procurement in the USA is now so riddled with corruption and unchecked sticker inflation the US Navy adopted a fifty year old commercial airliner airframe optimized for flying at altitudes of 35,000-42,000 feet. It has twin engines that are inefficient at low altitude. This type of machine is arguably completely at odds with the traditional role of a MRP/SAR platform that must to be useful spend a lot of it's time down and dirty skimming above the salty waves, and the USN has fudged this by claiming (with little evidence) that submarine launched AA systems have made low level ASW obsolete and talking vaguely about using yet to be deployed drones and possibly waving a magic wand as well. Even if the high-intensity ASW role can now be conducted from 35,000 feet with a P-8 and a drone and the low level MRP/SAR done by Coast Guard C-130s, that is a wasteful triplication of resources that an airforce like the RNZAF simply could not afford.
On the other hand, the NZ air force brass have barely budged in their subservient colonial mindset, and if it was buy British and British only up to 1941 it now equally firmly set to buying only from our new protectors in the USA. The military and civil service bureaucracy are also extremely risk averse on procurement. Buying the P-1 off the Japanese as the first overseas customer is the sort of "bold and courageous" thinking that would cause your average career wing commander or senior civil servant to crap their pants. So institutionally, the Air Force will want P-8s, because that is what our local Pacific allies the Aussies and Americans have got. Finally, the Aussies, the British, the Canadians (probably) and the USN will all operate this aircraft. That means we can "plug in" seamlessly with our tight five (eyes) buddies and the RNZAF will know that if something breaks on it's P-8 on the way to Diego Garcia, there will be a spare part somewhere in West Australia so we won't have to pay to have one handy on the shelf back in Auckland or sit about twiddling their thumbs while it is delivered from Japan and/or have a C-2 tag along to support the P-1 with ground crew and parts.
Against that, the Japanese P-1 is designed from the ground up for low altitude and low threat MRP/SAR operations and owns the P-8 in that space, which in practice is where the Orion fleet currently operates 99.999% of the time. It is equally as good as the P-8 at the shooty stuff and it even has a MAD. There is good commonality in parts with the C-2 and the C-2 can I believe carry a LAV or a NH-90, which is apparently a baseline requirement for the RNZAF. Being a twin jet, the C-2 has the speed, comfort and range to also replace the 757s. Politically, it would probably be easier to sell the P-1 to the NZ voter because I reckon as launch export customer we could get a sweet, sweet deal on price that could include jobs in local assembly of the aircraft and potentially some technology transfer.
I think we should go with six or seven of the P-1, a solid aircraft designed from the ground up for exactly the same mission profiles as the RNZAF currently fly, and the same number of C-2 transports to replace the Hercules and 757s, and do a price, technology and assembly deal that could be sold to the NZ public.
But we all know we'll end up buying all the P-8s we can afford, which will be about four, which like the NH-90s will be around two thirds the actual minimum number required to do the job.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 1, 2018 14:45:26 GMT 12
On the other hand, the NZ air force brass have barely budged in their subservient colonial mindset, and if it was buy British and British only up to 1941 it now equally firmly set to buying only from our new protectors in the USA. Absolute nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Mar 1, 2018 15:33:07 GMT 12
Fishing2day I like your general direction but the US Navy adopted a fifty year old commercial airliner airframe the only bits of a 737NG that are 50 years are the bits that work really well (unless you are a baggage handler). the NZ air force brass have barely budged in their subservient colonial mindset, and if it was buy British and British only up to 1941 it now equally firmly set to buying only from our new protectors in the USA. Actually I think it is a classic mixture of the "Now" focus of the military, economic ignorance & wishful thinking. Any body who thinks we can get a free lunch with regard to updates etc with US kit hasn't been following the news,its going to be cheaper to run our own upgrades. we can "plug in" seamlessly with our tight five (eyes) buddies and the RNZAF will know that if something breaks on it's P-8 on the way to Diego Garcia, there will be a spare part somewhere They all seem so ignorant with regard to fleet robustness which required diversity in systems used for the same roles. The RNZAF has lost aircraft to sabotage before & the great reaches of software makes it so easy to take out a whole fleet now [oops just changed the composition of a system critical O ring the fleet is stuffed (the RAF did this to its self & kill a Nimrod with crew)]. Politically, it would probably be easier to sell the P-1 to the NZ voter because I reckon as launch export customer we could get a sweet, sweet deal on price that could include jobs in local assembly of the aircraft and potentially some technology transfer. Local assembly would be a very poor idea, we build infrastructure to assembly the airframes, then what have a fire sale of used tools, jigging and send a bunch of people off to Winz. Plus there is no one who currently does this only any scale that isn't PRC owned except for Airbus (AirNZ has got rid of everything not airline related). Plus learning curve issues would mean a large number of manufacturing deflects (as approved concessions) would end up in the airframes (apparently a common problem with the oz built airframes). Better would be component assembly contracts supporting both Kawasaki civil & military programs plus some systems integration support for the P1. Plus I think 4 P8s is more likely to be 3, given a exchange rate drop is not unlikely before there is a signed agreement. |
|
|
|
Post by stereoimage on Mar 1, 2018 21:01:25 GMT 12
Hey all. I thought you might be interested in this article I wrote for KiwiFlyer Magazine comparing the Saab Swordfish and Boeing P8 offers for the NZDF's Future Air Surveillance Capability (FASC) requirement. It is edited down from 4000 words here, so if you are interested in more detail (mostly just specs and deeper description) let me know. Over the four days of the trade only days of the Singapore Airshow 2018 I had the privilege of talking in-depth to all the manufacturers with a bid in for our FASC requirement, as well as current RAAF and USN P8 crews, and many people from across the industry with MPA/ASW experience, including ex- RAF Nimrod pilots, ex- RAAF P3 aircrew, ex and current US Coast Guard aircrew, many of whom had no commercial interest in the competition. The Saab people were especially forthcoming, hence why I concentrate here on comparing their aircraft with the P8, which is to many the frontrunner in the competition. I ran all the specifications past the Boeing people, but they contradicted what the RAAF and USN aircrews told me. While the article is obviously fawning for the Saab offer, I promise there was no remuneration by them for me. I know it looks like I was bought! The RAAF aircrew were especially taken with the Bombardier G6000, who had just been for a tour through it when I spoke to them... I would have liked to have done a comparison that included the other contenders, especially the Kawasaki P1, which was universally admired by everybody, but I didn't have the space available to do it justice... All of them have their ups and downs, but Embraers KC-390 + E190-E2 combi was pretty interesting. It might have come down to a close race between the Swordfish and the P1 if I had done so, but the huge industrial offset Saab can offer through the aircraft's life would have trumped it there. Anyway, I just thought it might be relevant to your discussion here... I hope the link works! drive.google.com/file/d/1atNpyeuTw3roNlObfnimjHfD-UwtIWSh/view?usp=sharing |
|
|
|
Post by isc on Mar 1, 2018 22:01:38 GMT 12
The SAAB offering looks interesting, and apart from size (good), it may have less "strings" attached than the P-8.
Ian S C
|
|
|
|
Post by johnnyfalcon on Mar 2, 2018 7:14:13 GMT 12
Front runner in my book
|
|
|
|
Post by fishing2day on Mar 2, 2018 7:29:36 GMT 12
Hey all. I thought you might be interested in this article I wrote for KiwiFlyer Magazine comparing the Saab Swordfish and Boeing P8 offers for the NZDF's Future Air Surveillance Capability (FASC) requirement. It is edited down from 4000 words here, so if you are interested in more detail (mostly just specs and deeper description) let me know. Over the four days of the trade only days of the Singapore Airshow 2018 I had the privilege of talking in-depth to all the manufacturers with a bid in for our FASC requirement, as well as current RAAF and USN P8 crews, and many people from across the industry with MPA/ASW experience, including ex- RAF Nimrod pilots, ex- RAAF P3 aircrew, ex and current US Coast Guard aircrew, many of whom had no commercial interest in the competition. The Saab people were especially forthcoming, hence why I concentrate here on comparing their aircraft with the P8, which is to many the frontrunner in the competition. I ran all the specifications past the Boeing people, but they contradicted what the RAAF and USN aircrews told me. While the article is obviously fawning for the Saab offer, I promise there was no remuneration by them for me. I know it looks like I was bought! The RAAF aircrew were especially taken with the Bombardier G6000, who had just been for a tour through it when I spoke to them... I would have liked to have done a comparison that included the other contenders, especially the Kawasaki P1, which was universally admired by everybody, but I didn't have the space available to do it justice... All of them have their ups and downs, but Embraers KC-390 + E190-E2 combi was pretty interesting. It might have come down to a close race between the Swordfish and the P1 if I had done so, but the huge industrial offset Saab can offer through the aircraft's life would have trumped it there. Anyway, I just thought it might be relevant to your discussion here... I hope the link works! drive.google.com/file/d/1atNpyeuTw3roNlObfnimjHfD-UwtIWSh/view?usp=sharingHow come the SC-130J is such an outsider? |
|
chis73
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 87
|
Post by chis73 on Mar 2, 2018 9:15:18 GMT 12
How come the SC-130J is such an outsider? That's easy to answer: because it is still vapourware! No prototype built as yet, just like some other proposed variants of the Herk such as the C-130XL. Who will pay for the development and testing of the mission systems (not an insubstantial cost)? Lockheed - Martin don't seem all that keen to do it themselves. If you go back to the 1960s you will find that was exactly the reason the maritime variant of the C-130 was very sensibly dropped by the RNZAF in favour of the Orion (Paul Harrison's Kiwi Orions book is an excellent reference - must be due for a new edition Paul?). Also, at that time Lockheed in Burbank (who built the Orion) and Lockheed in Marietta (who built the C-130) were quite separate operations - and all the maritime expertise was in Burbank. I suspect we might see any new C130s kitted out for maritime search and rescue (probably not with a surface search radar, but maybe an E/O sensor turret). Their primary mission will still be transport. The probability is high that there won't be enough of the primary MPA aircraft to have more than one on-call (as is the situation today where a Herk is usually the backup aircraft for a SAR mission, rather than a second Orion - due to crew limitations? - or serviceability?) Seeing as it is March already, I guess we won't have long to wait to find out if the P-8 has got the nod (I believe the FMS offer expires this month). |
|
|
|
Post by stereoimage on Mar 2, 2018 14:28:23 GMT 12
Did the link to the article work? I haven't tested it logged out... Re: fishing 2day; If the NZDF wanted to find synergy between the FASC and the FAMC requirements, then it would be KC390 all the way... The KC390's performance makes it an exceptional MPA platform, where like the G6000 its efficiency envelope extends from low to high altitude, and low to high speed, making it its high-low-high mission profile much more usable (ie: designed with modern aerodynamic models as opposed to sixty years old aerodynamic models, no matter how much 'new-tech stuff' you hang off it.) Coupled with greatly reduced logistics requirements on the ground means lower operating costs, and those operating costs dictate how and when the NZDF can use the aircraft. The KC390 was designed for and by a country that actually has an even tighter military budget than NZ (per capita that is, and excluding the portion of their domestic law and order budget that gets transferred to the military). It was designed from the outset to be self-deployable, with minimal support costs, and designed to operate in small numbers. The American technology is designed to work within the context of their huge military infrastructure. This is why Saab and Embraer are world leaders in operational efficiency. And we NEED that efficiency.
Another problem with American hardware is technology transfer, organic upgrade paths and industrial offset. No one is talking about 'building aircraft here', that would be silly. But both Embraer and Saab have the ability to invest in the local industry to fully represent them in-country. This makes through-life cost and support given to a business that pays tax here in NZ, rather than offshore, with the ability to on-sell that support and upgrades to other users of the type. Both Saab and Embraer have already been in negotiations with local industry to do just that, and at the Expo both businesses remarked how NZ's aviation industry is in a prime position to take on that capacity. This is not possible for US companies selling through the FMS program, which was designed from the outset as a means of selling technology overseas while retaining 'sovereignty' and intellectual property rights of the technology while returning through-life costs to the OEM (which is where the real money is to be made). You are not allowed to carry out your own upgrade path or on-sell technology when buying through an FMS program unless the OEM is prime-contractor. I have an American diplomat I play poker with here in Jakarta who spent years working on FMS deals worldwide who explained it to me in detail. Remember we did not buy our P3's or C-130's through a modern FMS deal, so we were able to follow our own organic upgrade path for them. Also, even though we went into the C-130 and P3 upgrade research with the intention of 'making a business' of then selling on that upgrade capacity to other countries also operating P3's and C-130's, the USA pulled the plug on our ability to do so, (using the same mechanism that stopped us from selling our Skyhawks, even though we were trying to sell them to businesses that contracted to the USAF. They really pooched us there).
Another reason to avoid US technology, and maybe the most important one, is that our foreign policy rubrics do not align... We have repeatedly seen that the USA's allies behave as bad as our enemy's do, and this has become a huge problem in the public narrative of how New Zealanders want the NZDF to deploy... a good case in point is their relationship to Saudi Arabia. And, as an extreme case, the Afghan commander 'we' were supporting who openly had a 9-year old boy chained to his bed as a sex slave... (Apparently 'Girls are for babies, boys are for fun' is a common phrase in Afganistan...). The new FMS system was set up in the 1970's as a way of keeping a leash on the independent foreign policy objectives of their allies by having the through-life support of the weapons systems sold to them go through the Defense Security Cooperation Agency. It is super important for NZ to be able to enforce its own foreign policy, especially since it is likely that in the future, as the 'pressure cooker' effect of rising sea levels in the South Pacific exacerbates current simmering ethnic and economic tensions, the NZ public's view on solutions will diverge from those who will be lobbying the US govt to act in their interests. There will be a lot of political pressure on the Ministry of Defense as far as these acquisition programs go, and not just from the budget angle. It's all very complicated, but having sovereignty over the application and use of our defence force has to be factored into future-proofing and long-form policy.
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Mar 2, 2018 15:29:02 GMT 12
Did the link to the article work? I haven't tested it logged out... Yes, thanks, I haven't had a chance to read it yet. |
|
|
|
Post by johnnyfalcon on Mar 2, 2018 18:13:02 GMT 12
Yep. Good summary - thank you
|
|
|
|
Post by stereoimage on Mar 2, 2018 19:22:35 GMT 12
 The RAAF crew were keen to talk about their P8's. Apparently, because its wing is much more flexible, it has a much nicer low-altitude ride than the P3. But also that the P8's efficiency and range go out the window at mid to low altitude. While we are told that it can 'stay in the air for 11 hours', they said it can only do so at high altitude. As soon as its mission calls for low-altitude work its loitering time with a 2000km transit goes down below 4 hours... whereas the G6000 and P8 can loiter for eight hours at that distance at low-altitude. To be honest, I don't know what it is about the G6000's wing that allows this, but apparently, the KC390 is similar. No one could tell me what the E-190E2, ATR-72, C-27J, C-295 or SC-130 was like in that regard, but I spoke to a US Coast Guard Pilot who said they were not enjoying their C-130's, C-27J's and C-295's so much, since the transit times were so long and the loiter times so short. He said in the anti-narcotics patrols of the Caribbean, keeping a 12-hour patrol on-station would take 4 airframes; one on the way to the area, one on the way back, one on patrol and one on the turnaround. Whereas with the P-8, G6000 or P1 you could do it with two aircraft. He was, however, overflowing with praise for the radar they have in the CG C-130's, the Selex Seaspray 7500E, which he said was 'the best maritime patrol radar on the planet'. This is the radar that is in the Saab Swordfish, and the ATR-72MP. Seaspray 7500EHere is a funny Tabloid perspective... on the RAF 'cuppa' experience: “I think it’s extraordinary that our new US-made replacements won't have any facilities at all. That’s the price you pay when you buy off the shelf." |
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Mar 2, 2018 19:33:36 GMT 12
Surely the hostie will bring the tea and biscuits?
|
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Mar 3, 2018 9:59:30 GMT 12
Hey all. I thought you might be interested in this article I wrote for KiwiFlyer Magazine comparing the Saab Swordfish and Boeing P8 offers for the NZDF's Future Air Surveillance Capability (FASC) requirement. It is edited down from 4000 words here, so if you are interested in more detail (mostly just specs and deeper description) let me know. Over the four days of the trade only days of the Singapore Airshow 2018 I had the privilege of talking in-depth to all the manufacturers with a bid in for our FASC requirement, as well as current RAAF and USN P8 crews, and many people from across the industry with MPA/ASW experience, including ex- RAF Nimrod pilots, ex- RAAF P3 aircrew, ex and current US Coast Guard aircrew, many of whom had no commercial interest in the competition. The Saab people were especially forthcoming, hence why I concentrate here on comparing their aircraft with the P8, which is to many the frontrunner in the competition. I ran all the specifications past the Boeing people, but they contradicted what the RAAF and USN aircrews told me. While the article is obviously fawning for the Saab offer, I promise there was no remuneration by them for me. I know it looks like I was bought! The RAAF aircrew were especially taken with the Bombardier G6000, who had just been for a tour through it when I spoke to them... I would have liked to have done a comparison that included the other contenders, especially the Kawasaki P1, which was universally admired by everybody, but I didn't have the space available to do it justice... All of them have their ups and downs, but Embraers KC-390 + E190-E2 combi was pretty interesting. It might have come down to a close race between the Swordfish and the P1 if I had done so, but the huge industrial offset Saab can offer through the aircraft's life would have trumped it there. Anyway, I just thought it might be relevant to your discussion here... I hope the link works! drive.google.com/file/d/1atNpyeuTw3roNlObfnimjHfD-UwtIWSh/view?usp=sharingIt's a damned fine looking option, but I can't see any obvious evidence online of anyone that has the Global 6000 & Swordfish combo in use... are there any? I am a firm believer that NZ shouldn't buy anything other than proven platforms and that means the specific airframe + systems combination. If this combo isn't in use it is unlikely (unfortunately) to be considered by NZDF / MinDef. |
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Mar 3, 2018 12:04:08 GMT 12
Agree and both the airlift and orion replacement's must be in operational service as per the RFI.
So only things we should be talking about are the P8 and P1.
I have some suspicions, something is to come to media very soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Mar 3, 2018 12:08:50 GMT 12
Surely the P-1 would be ruled out(unfortunately) by not being in service with NATO or ABCA nations?,that being a usual requirement for new equipment.
|
|
|
|
Post by exkiwiforces on Mar 3, 2018 18:20:52 GMT 12
(Apparently 'Girls are for babies, boys are for fun' is a common phrase in Afganistan...) Yes this saying is fair dinkum and if anybody here has deployed to the Gan would remember "Man love Thursdays" which was quite disgusting and I've heard even worst.
I'm not sure you said here but, "P8 comes with a lot of hooks" is correct in saying that. As it has changed the way RAAF operates now and into the future from Recruit/ Officer cadet Boggs to Active/ Passive FP, ICT, The Purple circle (Joint Operations/ Planning) and UAV's etc. Yes you need UAV's to get the best use out of the P8 by the way it has been design for its mission cycle and one needs to look at the how much money has been thrown at the RAAF to setup the P8 and UAV program which is truly eye watering. This is where I have some major concerns about the P8 entering RNZAF service as the P8 has more hooks than one of my fishing lures as the transformation it has brought to RAAF has being huge. It could end up like the LAV's or the NH-90's, for example the NZLAV's a awful lot of gun wagons, but bugger all A Echelon vehicles when you use the old M113's as a bench mark or the NH-90's where the RNZAF has to few in service for concurrent operations.
With NZ's small Defence budget and the $20B upgrade at best the NZ could really afford 3-4 P8's depending the US exchange rate atm and that's not including the infrastructure upgrades IRT US Security and Maintenance requirements etc, then there is the upgrades to the Navy and Army assets to mark use of the P8 information data before we even start talking about the UAVs (about 200to 250m US dollars per UAV atm) which is needed to make the P8 from a average aircraft to a really good Aircraft.
Knowing a few members of the current Government and their views on defence, I really don't like my chances of the P8 entering RNZAF service atm especially way the US dollar is heading atm and the current MoD wanting like for like replacement, but 6mths ago it would have been even money for the P8 with the P1 as roughie and now with CPTTP or whatever its called now makes the P1 and C2 almost even money now with SAAB a outside chance and the P8 a roughie.
As for those saying that Transport Aircraft doing Maritime Ops, one only needs to look at the Brits during the 50 to the 70's at their studies via Chis Gibson's book "Nimrod's Genesis- RAF Maritime Patrol Projects and Weapons since 1945" for a good read. The thought of a VC-10 or a Concorde type aircraft doing Maritime Ops sounds quite fun to do lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Mar 3, 2018 19:25:49 GMT 12
Lets just get Air New Zealand's retiring B767's and fill them with dole bludgers at each window with binoculars.
On a more serious note, does the current govt want to go down the path of purchasing something that will have to have other big purchases made so to have the new aircraft more effective and current with our other 5eyes friends.
With the request for pricing etc made for the P8 last year, priority for that platform must have come from the NZDF ??
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Mar 3, 2018 19:37:48 GMT 12
As I understand it, if you want a quote from the US, then you have to go through that process. So getting a firm price shouldn't be taken as proof of anything more than they are a serious contender.
|
|
a400m
Leading Aircraftman
Posts: 1 
|
Post by a400m on Mar 9, 2018 10:12:20 GMT 12
I think Beagle could be on to something. As A47-004 P8 arrived into Wellington last night from Brisbane. Pending announcement??
|
|
