jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74 
|
Post by jeffref on Apr 30, 2017 8:50:08 GMT 12
Four P8s will not replace 6 P3's. The P8 has less range than a P3 for a start unless you are going to buy tankers to refuel them. Secondly they will require more maintenance especially if they are going to be used low down. The 737 is not designed for this. You can of course do it but there will be a cost. A third problem is unlike the P3 you can only operate off a long runway which can easily use airports like Greymouth or Kaitaia. At full load you are talking about Christchurch, Mangere and maybe Ohakea.
This purchase looks to be designed for RNZAF to use the aircraft outside NZ for the benefit of our "allies" which is stupid because of our already low budget. As far as buying other aircraft for our own missions, why? If you buy suitable aircraft in the first place there is no point. If the Govt has any brains it will purchase an aircraft that can do both the tactical airlift and the MP mission. You can save heaps of cash on training, and maintenance because there is only need for one set of spares and you can probably buy more as well.
If you buy the P8, the CN235 and tactical airlift aircraft as well you are just going to increase your costs and reduce the money available for the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 30, 2017 9:01:07 GMT 12
Four new aircraft will possibly be as efficient and able to maintain operations just as effectively as the six aircraft that are over half a century old, and continually having maintenance issues due to lack of parts. There are usually not more than four Orions on the line anyway these days I believe.
I guess the P-8 would have to have its major servicings done by Air New Zealand or a similar contractor. I am not sure one would get in and out of Woodbourne comfortably to visit SAFE Air?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 30, 2017 9:02:39 GMT 12
Why do you keep calling it a 737 Jeffref? A P-8 is a different airframe altogether.
|
|
|
|
Post by joey05 on Apr 30, 2017 9:04:41 GMT 12
I would love to see some cn235/295 in both cargo and maritime, however from history I'm putting my money on we will get 4 to replace 6. Being new airframes there will be a lot less maintenance time (initially anyway) so we would likely have the same amount of available airframes as we do now! Then we may look at further airframes down the track as we did with the Skyhawks and 6th P3 from Oz.
How many NH90s did we get to replace our Hueys........
|
|
|
|
Post by joey05 on Apr 30, 2017 9:05:30 GMT 12
Of course we "could" be looking at some sort of uav which could make a difference too!
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Apr 30, 2017 9:09:36 GMT 12
Why do you keep calling it a 737 Jeffref? A P-8 is a different airframe altogether. 737-800 Fuselage 737-900 Wings |
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Apr 30, 2017 9:36:48 GMT 12
A fleet of 4 is at best only 3 in the air.
So less than P3 capable.
Unless they are going to guarantee 100% servicable...and would then have to navigate around the flying pigs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 30, 2017 10:01:16 GMT 12
I still think four new aircraft will present a much better situation for the squadron than the current fleet which only has a very short time left due to the spares crisis.
Either way, there's so much speculation in this thread, as ever, and the news yesterday isn't even saying we have purchased the P-8, yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Apr 30, 2017 10:13:10 GMT 12
We currently have 3 operational crews, with the possibility to surge to 4 from training capability, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Apr 30, 2017 11:25:22 GMT 12
What is the primary role of a Maritime Surveillance aircraft. Now thats tricky. The P8 is primarily configured to locate and presumably try to sink Russian surface vessels and with optional drones to try to do the same with submarines. Now how many Russian warships have you seen down thisaway lately?  ? Now I have no doubt that the P8 can probably locate Kutsnetsov and using Harpoon or its replacement damage or sink it but frankly it is going to struggle against submarines since AIP means that no longer will you be able to detect a snort by RDF nor will you be able to "smell" diesel emissions. As far as dropping sonobuoys go a RN SSN driver said the only time he was detected he was "very close". They are also only useful in the layer they are set normally on the surface. If the U Boats (whoops) go below that layer they are useless.Hunting submarines has changed since WW2 and frankly aircraft are no longer an answer. As far as effectiveness of the P3 and P8 in SAR goes they should ask the USN. A returning P3 was asked to help US Navy P8's and USCG C130s to help search for a missing boat off Hawaii. Guess who found the boat? Premier MSA? Bollocks. The P8 got the US contract because it had better influence in Congress. The USN tried twice to get more P3s but were denied. NZ has commitments to patrolling one of the largest oceanic areas in the world. That is why we need a MSA not to patrol for non-existent Russian warships. If the poo ever did hit the fan it would all be over before you got MinDef out of bed anyway. I don't know what your fixation is with "Russian warships". Any surface target (irrespective from which country) looks the same on a radar! I'm more worried about the future threat from Chinese warships in our region than Russian. The current Gov't requires the RNZAF to be able to detect and prosecute both surface and subsurface targets. That is why we have/are procuring the capability. If they only want us to do SAR then that is all we will get (but thankfully we aren't). We are only now seriously getting back in the ASW game thanks to decades of under funding and disinterest by Gov't. This is an acknowledgement that the world has changed, there ain't no benign strategic environment out there any more (not that there ever was one anyway, that was just Labour propaganda at the time). |
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Apr 30, 2017 11:37:45 GMT 12
If you want your P8 to prosecute subs you are going to have a problem. It only has sonobuoys which are pretty useless according to a RN SSN driver. There was no mention of buying any of the (untested) drones that the USN and RAAF are buying. The reality is the P8 as in the request is configured more for anti surface work. As far as the Chinese go I am sure that the mighty US under Greatest US President Trump will stop them long before they become a problem for the RNZAF.
|
|
Dinga
Warrant Officer
Posts: 34
|
Post by Dinga on Apr 30, 2017 11:38:40 GMT 12
I still think four new aircraft will present a much better situation for the squadron than the current fleet which only has a very short time left due to the spares crisis. Either way, there's so much speculation in this thread, as ever, and the news yesterday isn't even saying we have purchased the P-8, yet. The Orions still have a good avionics package "state of the art" Minister Brownlee said on radio today.Really sounded like he was not in favour of replacing them.So if we are to believe the defence Minister, why do we need to replace them?They are a good patrol type and they can get down low and watch over a vessel in peril until help arrives.Can the P8 do that?What is the spares crisis exactly.How long can they go.At least 5 years maybe more.Why not buy newer P3s from the United states.The Poisiden is great for modern airwarfare but that's not what five squadron have been doing for the last fifty years.The bulk of there work is patrolling our waters and Search and Rescue. |
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Apr 30, 2017 11:48:58 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Apr 30, 2017 12:01:16 GMT 12
I still think four new aircraft will present a much better situation for the squadron than the current fleet which only has a very short time left due to the spares crisis. Either way, there's so much speculation in this thread, as ever, and the news yesterday isn't even saying we have purchased the P-8, yet. The Orions still have a good avionics package "state of the art" Minister Brownlee said on radio today.Really sounded like he was not in favour of replacing them.So if we are to believe the defence Minister, why do we need to replace them? It would be really helpful if you read the post you are responding to. Your answer is in the first sentence. Your basis for 'At least 5 years' is what exactly? The USN is removing the support structure for the type, and the number of airframes in use is plummeting. 'Another 5 years' mentality is exactly the attitude that has got us replacing the Orions and the Hercs at basically the same time, while straining under a large maintenance cost. You can find out about the spares crisis buy searching for 'spares' in this thread, and listening to the interveiws with 5SQN personnel. Because they use the same spares. And are worn out (the P-8 is arriving later than was planned for). As long as the requirement is to provide warfighting ability in pursuit of the Government's goals, the proportion of tasking isn't that relevant. You aren't saying anything that hasn't been covered in this thread already. |
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Apr 30, 2017 12:02:46 GMT 12
Why don't you go back through this thread and read them? See if you have anything new to say. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 30, 2017 12:14:59 GMT 12
The Orions still have a good avionics package "state of the art" Minister Brownlee said on radio today.Really sounded like he was not in favour of replacing them. Regardless of what Brownlee is in favour of, they need replacing otherwise we'll suddenly have no maritime capability. For those who have not been paying attention, the US Navy is transitioning it's Orion squadrons over to the P-8. As a result of this, Lockheed has stopped producing new spare parts, as the US Navy no longer requires them. A result of this is the unused parts pool is now finite, and so other nations operating the P-3 have jumped in and bought them all up. This has led to significant issues already for the maintainers of the No. 5 Squadron Orions and can only get worse. I spent time in September with many members of the squadron including the Commanding Officer and the Senior Engineering Officer and all said the same thing, they have a parts crisis now, they are having to pull parts off one aircraft to keep the next flying, they need a solution soon and the only solution is a replacement fleet. And the indication i got was within the next year or two. Forget the Treasury and MoD's ideas of keeping them flying till 2025, it's just unrealistic. There's nothing wrong with the electronics package but that is useless if there's not enough parts available to keep the airframes flying. Because a newer Orion has exactly the same future as an old one, grounded when the parts source dries up. End of story. And yet the squadron members themselves that I spoke with all suggested the P-8 was the only option they were keen on. |
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Apr 30, 2017 12:17:42 GMT 12
Why don't you go back through this thread and read them? See if you have anything new to say. You are correct. There was certainly heaps of discussion on the SeaHerc |
|
Dinga
Warrant Officer
Posts: 34
|
Post by Dinga on Apr 30, 2017 12:24:04 GMT 12
Well that's me shot down in flames thankyou Mr Errol C.Sounds like we have a real crisis on our hands according to you.I would lay odds five squadron could keep those P3s flying if they had to which is their job.So what if I said something that's already been covered,no harm in refreshing peoples memorys mate.It would seem there is no suitable replacement for an orion except another Orion.If the p8 is not up to search and rescue then its a waste of space.
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on Apr 30, 2017 12:41:53 GMT 12
Jeff, were you a fishhead? I only ask because I wasn't, and I'm getting into areas that weren't my expertise so I hope there's no 'egg-sucking', however I don't think your claims about the P8 lacking an ASW capability are true.
ASW is primarily conducted with sonobuoys (either active or passive) to locate, track and prosecute the sub. This is the same on both the P3 and the P8 (and the unflown, untested C130 MPA). From that point of view nothing has changed. There is no doubt that a sub is a difficult object to pin down when it is under water. Intelligence, a sonobuoy grid, or a lucky sighting either visually or on radar hit on the surface will get the MPA asset looking in the broad area, at which point a sonobuoy search pattern is used to triangulate the sub. In this regard, the P8 has a more modern and capable acoustic processor, and we will be able to join in the upgrade path offered by the USN and allies.
Unlike the P3, USN and allied P8s don't have a Magnetic Anomaly Detector, in part to a weight saving drive - this is a low level sensor and relies on a near overflight to trigger. The P3 boys would either drop sonobuoys after it triggered and/or commence a low level MAD pattern to locate the sub. Apparently the improvements in the P8 acoustic processor makes the MAD capability redundant (however I guess the Indians are sufficiently cautious to include it on theirs for shallow water ops)
The P8 has a hydrocarbon sensor so they can fly up the the diesel fumes trail left by a diesel-electric sub.
The P8 has internal torpedo and depth charge capability, so is able to prosecute sub-surface targets itself. The anti-sub drone is still to be fielded by the USN, but this is an additional ASW capability to the inherent ASW capability in the P8 (I imagine for high risk / contested ASW).
I have a little better idea of ASuW tactics by aircraft.... I hope the RNZAF invests in the Harpoon for the P8 to significantly enhance the NZDF's anti shipping capability, and takes advantage of the P8's radar, JTIDS and ESM capabilities.
For SAR, it has a great radar, IR and EO camera, visual search windows and can fly low level if needed.
Th MQ-4C Triton UAV is being procured by the USN and RAAF for broad-area persistent surveillance capability and to work in concert with the P8. Probably a capability that the NZDF should invest in, but capability vs cost at play.
SC-130J: On paper only
P7 / P3 Orion 21: Cancelled
Nimrod 2000: Cancelled
Kawasaki P1: Being considered.
|
|
|
|
Post by nige on Apr 30, 2017 12:51:07 GMT 12
Well that's me shot down in flames thankyou Mr Errol C.Sounds like we have a real crisis on our hands according to you.I would lay odds five squadron could keep those P3s flying if they had to which is their job.So what if I said something that's already been covered,no harm in refreshing peoples memorys mate.It would seem there is no suitable replacement for an orion except another Orion.If the p8 is not up to search and rescue then its a waste of space. Can you explain how "five squadron could keep those P3s flying if they had to which is their job" if particular spare parts are no longer available? Our P-3's are now over 50 years old (the design is even older), there comes a time when manufacturers stop making parts. Dave H. as covered it extensively - we have reached that time, parts are no longer being made, and available spares have been snapped up by other P-3 operators. Who has said the P-8 is "not up to search and rescue"? Certainly not the RNZAF, RAAF and the USN and they would know better than anyone else. What the P-8 will offer the RNZAF in terms of SAR is a faster transit time to the search area, which increases the likelihood of survival for those in distress. As a personal aside, to complement the potential fewer P-8 numbers I'd like to see "some" of the air transport replacements (eg A400M or C-130J) fitted with an electro-optical camera system, to allow them to contribute as secondary SAR assets (as well as come in handy for overland missions). These are relatively inexpensive but I wouldn't hold by breath this would happen. |
|
? Now I have no doubt that the P8 can probably locate Kutsnetsov and using Harpoon or its replacement damage or sink it but frankly it is going to struggle against submarines since AIP means that no longer will you be able to detect a snort by RDF nor will you be able to "smell" diesel emissions.