NZDF General discussion thread

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Yeah, more of a question though with the P-8 acquisition and whether or not contingencies have been thrashed out about dealing with, going from a loiter time of 16 hours with the P-3K to 4 hours with the P-8A. Was under the belief that some sort of supplementary aircraft was going to be purchased to extend the reach of the P-8s. After a quick skim read of the 5 pages of the RNZAF thread I'm non the wiser.

So is there any contingency plan for dealing with the difference in loiter time or is RNZAF going to work to new standards?

Don't know how much is left in the Maritime Surveillance budget, but there's the best part of $16 billion left in the 20 billion recapitalising fund. So still some room for speculation.
You need to go a lot further back than 5 pages because there has been significant discussion within this thread about the FASC. The reason why the P-8 was acquired so quickly is because Boeing has told potential users that the production line will be closing sooner rather than later so it's basically final orders please. The RFI for the FASC stated that a multi-tier system was being looked at, but that was all and we have presumed that it is the P-8, a 3rd tier platform such as the B350i for EEZ work, and in the future possibly a HALE or MALE UAV / RPAS for extended long distance over water surveillance. The $20 billion hasn't been budgeted, unfortunately so at present it is an aspiration rather than something carved in stone AND it will not be adjusted for inflation and currency fluctuations etc.

I think that people are being hung up on the P-3 / P-8 comparison saying that P-8 can't do things that the P-3 can, when in fact the opposite would be closer to the truth. From what I have read since the P-8 has entered USN service, their former P-3 operators wax lyrical about it and the common thread is that it's a whole new ball game. I have read on other forums people criticising the P-8 saying that it can't operate out of airfields that P-3s currently do, or that it can't do SAR like the P-3, or that it can't operate low and slow like the P-3, doesn't have the range etc. The interesting thing is those undertaking that criticism are pontificating without the knowledge or access to all the relevant data. There is reliable open source data on the P-8 and its capabilities; it's just a matter of researching. There is a wealth of P-8 material on DT & not all of it is on the RNZAF thread either.
 

beegee

Active Member
Yeah, more of a question though with the P-8 acquisition and whether or not contingencies have been thrashed out about dealing with, going from a loiter time of 16 hours with the P-3K to 4 hours with the P-8A. Was under the belief that some sort of supplementary aircraft was going to be purchased to extend the reach of the P-8s. After a quick skim read of the 5 pages of the RNZAF thread I'm non the wiser.

So is there any contingency plan for dealing with the difference in loiter time or is RNZAF going to work to new standards?

Don't know how much is left in the Maritime Surveillance budget, but there's the best part of $16 billion left in the 20 billion recapitalising fund. So still some room for speculation.
Where are you getting 16 hour loiter time from? At what range is that loiter time?

According to US navy website the P-3 has...
...three hours on station at 1,500 feet, 1,346 nautical miles
The US Navy -- Fact File: P-3C Orion and EP-3 Aries

Which is very similar to the P-8's four hours at 1200 nautical miles.
 

Ocean1Curse

Member
Where are you getting 16 hour loiter time from? At what range is that loiter time?

According to US navy website the P-3 has...

The US Navy -- Fact File: P-3C Orion and EP-3 Aries

Which is very similar to the P-8's four hours at 1200 nautical miles.
First of all a thanks to Ngati and others for there time and energy. It is true that I'm disruptive but I am a friend to the NZDF. With out much fuss the P-8A Poseidon and the Future of ASW thread was easy to find no problem.

And I'm a bit shy on explaining where I got my P-8A information. I'd guess that most of, I'd say 90% of information floating around about the P-8's is complete trash.

Personally I'v viewed the P-3K as more of an over exertion on the budget considering its past time to retire them.

Society doesn't deem the FASC as a negative at the moment. What makes open source information trash is the list of negatives can be almost infinite so a complete wast of time and money. Technically I wouldn't have to explain the trash since it would be up to P-8 pilots/crew to explain why they love the P-8. All I would say is it's good to see RNZAF go from a Model T Ford to a Tesla Model S.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Where are you getting 16 hour loiter time from? At what range is that loiter time?

According to US navy website the P-3 has...

The US Navy -- Fact File: P-3C Orion and EP-3 Aries

Which is very similar to the P-8's four hours at 1200 nautical miles.
IIRC there were comments made here, during the search for MH 370 in the southern Indian Ocean, which told that the P8 was capable of searching nearly twice the area searched by the P3s. My memory is not perfect but if it wasn’t double it was substantially more.
Any yearning for the Orion is sheer nostalgia.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
So you suggest a change to joint ops with a down grade in capability in CONOPS from Cold War thinking when we are in a period of increasing international tensions in the Indo - Pacific region and probably Cold War 2.0? With suggestions like that no wonder Canadian defence is FW&T'd.

I don’t think he’s suggesting that at all, methinks he’s suggesting an alternative going into the future to what is currently operational, as the NZDF is limited to what it can achieve operationally now



Yes CONOPS do need to change to reflect modern warfare, but there also needs to be realistic resourcing and funding from the NZG regardless of political persuasion. You also need to understand capabilities in an NZ are not just about what's required now, but have to be future proofed because they will be used for 30 - 50 years, so a mini LPD is not going to suffice. It is less than what we have now and the MRV Canterbury isn't fit for purpose. IF Canterbury had a well dock it would be fit for purpose, but it doesn't hence it's not.

I agree whole heartily that funding & capability must increase if it is to dovetail the future operating concept outlined in previous documents such as the JATF future force 35 and FOC2035. But it’s hard to focus on future equipment that the overall NZDF needs without looking at historical funding over the last 20/30 years.


But the concept that may need more exploring is if funding/price for a single small 20000t LHD cannot be accommodated, but funds are forthcoming for 1/2 hulls of say some of the size of the Galicia class LPD, those are roughly the same overall size of Canterbury but flexibility offered by 2 hulls is an increase in capability overall than what is currently available. If you had the choice if it were 1 decent sized LHD or 2 Galicia class or similar, I’d think I’d opt for the 2x Galicia hulls





Multi role platforms are good to a point but to much multi role creates a platform that is about as useful as nipples on a bull or an electric coat hanger. You either have a FF or a LHD / LPD, not a bitsa of both, because they have completely different roles and you have been on here long enough to know that.


Whilst I advocate increased sensors, gun and SAM armament on LHD / LPDs and AORs etc., it is for their defence capabilities along with AShM & SSM for distributed lethality, I certainly don't advocate using them as FF replacements and the opposite is equally valid.

Agree the 1st tier combat force and the amphibious capability should be looked at in isolation, but that not say that they can’t enhance the overall fire power wether in the area of NGFS or otherwise


The LST-120 or similar look interesting, but I wonder what their sea-keeping abilities are like in blue water when it's quite rough, really blowing, and you are a hundreds of nautical miles from land, undertaking a transit passage. I visited Tobruk a couple of times for ales when it was alongside in NZ, so maybe @ASSAIL or one of the other RAN old salts maybe able shed some light on what she was like in the open sea.

On the Damen LST120,

I actually have a soft spot for them, they appear to be well thought out with a mix of being able to beach when required or use small landing craft for troop movements, it’s enclosed so equipment is out of the weather and has a deadweight of 1700t just over 3x the weight limit of the old RAN LCH’s the Balikpapan’s. The LCH’s have done long ocean voyages the longest being Brisbane to Penang I belive, not something you’d want to do on a regular basis, it would be interesting to see the LST ocean going capbilty as I’d imagine she would still have a flat bottom for the ability to beach.


In a New Zealand context I think they have their place pending funding approval, if by chance that the RNZN did get something like the Endurance 170 LHD the LST will actually give some much needed breathing space for operations closer to home that otherwise would not be conducted as the LHD could very well find themselves out of area on an ex or whatever. The LST will actually enhance amphibious/ HADR capabilities of the Navy reducing redundancy of only having one ship available for all tasking
 
Last edited:

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
And I'm a bit shy on explaining where I got my P-8A information. I'd guess that most of, I'd say 90% of information floating around about the P-8's is complete trash.
That's okay, but be aware that I and many other understand that 99% of the information floating around the Internet without verification is bulldust and folk claiming that they can't provide it (without killing us) are at the sad end of the trustworthiness scale

oldsig
 

beegee

Active Member
IIRC there were comments made here, during the search for MH 370 in the southern Indian Ocean, which told that the P8 was capable of searching nearly twice the area searched by the P3s. My memory is not perfect but if it wasn’t double it was substantially more.
Any yearning for the Orion is sheer nostalgia.
Indeed.

I enjoyed my time working on the P-3Ks in the early 90s, but the P-8 is such a huge step up in capability it's not funny.
 

Rob c

Active Member
I have 4 problems with the P8 purchase,
1. I would have prefered an AESA radar for it's stealth and anti jamming ability. with a mechanical sweep radar anyone with ECM/ESM will know you are coming before you get into detection range.
2. I would have liked to see more air awareness built in as per the Indian navy, this is probably the only region that the K2 has an advantage.
3. we did not get enough of them.
4. we did not get enough of them.
But seriously, it is a huge step up and coming to Ohakea will be good for my region.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I have 4 problems with the P8 purchase,
1. I would have prefered an AESA radar for it's stealth and anti jamming ability. with a mechanical sweep radar anyone with AEW will know you are coming before you get into detection range.
2. I would have liked to see more air awareness built in as per the Indian navy, this is probably the only region that the K2 has an advantage.
3. we did not get enough of them.
4. we did not get enough of them.
But seriously, it is a huge step up and coming to Ohakea will be good for my region.
Agree with 3 & 4. Regarding No 1 & No 2., I think that is to change over time with new capabilities to be added to the P-8 fleet (USN, RAAF, RAF & RNZAF) gradually. Not all of the P-8 capabilities have been fitted and / or released yet.
 

Rob c

Active Member
Agree with 3 & 4. Regarding No 1 & No 2., I think that is to change over time with new capabilities to be added to the P-8 fleet (USN, RAAF, RAF & RNZAF) gradually. Not all of the P-8 capabilities have been fitted and / or released yet.
Yes agreed, as time goes on improvements could, and in MHO should cover these areas.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Yes agreed, as time goes on improvements could, and in MHO should cover these areas.
The Advanced Airborne Sensor (APS-154) is an AESA which has been fitted to USN P-3C Orion aircraft and IIRC P-8A Poseidon aircraft as well. It is the follow-on to the APS-149 Littoral Surveillance Radar System (LSRS) which also utilized an AESA.

With respect to being detected by AEW, unless one is in a LO aircraft, they should expect to be detected by the AEW while they are still well out of range.
 

Rob c

Active Member
The Advanced Airborne Sensor (APS-154) is an AESA which has been fitted to USN P-3C Orion aircraft and IIRC P-8A Poseidon aircraft as well. It is the follow-on to the APS-149 Littoral Surveillance Radar System (LSRS) which also utilized an AESA.

With respect to being detected by AEW, unless one is in a LO aircraft, they should expect to be detected by the AEW while they are still well out of range.
Sorry for the confusion, I had a senior moment and wrote down AEW when I meant ECM/ESM. Most modern combat aircraft and ships and subs have have such detection ability, in the subs case on one or more of their masts. Yes the ASP154 has been fitted externally to the P8 but is not a normal fitment to the standard aircraft and what I would like to see is the aircrafts normally fitted radar be changed in time for an AESA type of radar. This will eliminate it's radar output signature and make jamming of the radar almost impossible. It also makes detection of the AESA transmitting aircraft by hostile radars more difficult as it will fudge the return signal.
 
Last edited:

t68

Well-Known Member
There is so much wrong with this post that I cannot wait to take it apart. But, It is Christmas day and tomorrow I will be off on holiday until the 7th of Jan, but I so much want to get into this total nonsense that fails to completely understand NZ Conops and SPAO HADR requirements and simplistically focuses only amphibious combat operations.

Hi Mr C

Well it’s nearly they end of the silly season, I have been eagerly awaiting your rebuttal to get another point of view. I hope your fully recharged till the next silly season
 

40 deg south

Well-Known Member
Gidday Kiwis
Hhow about a bit of speculation about the year ahead? I'm going to list a few topics, and run through confirmed and possible developments for 2019. As always, I'm relying on your collective wisdom to add value to the exercise.

Navy
New AOR Aotearoa launched by HHI mid-year, and sea trials to begin later in the year. Delivery to NZ early in 2020, but I would assume significant Navy involvement in the sea trials work?
New Manawanui to be delivered in second half of year, following upgrades/modifications in Norway (including engine replacement). Self-defence weapons and comms systems to be fitted at Devonport after delivery.
Upgrade of Te Kaha at Seaspan in Vancouver to be completed? (I have struggled to keep up with the ever-receding timeline of this project). Presumably as Te Kaha comes out of refit, Te Mana will replace her dockside in Canada. Te Kaha will then return to Devonport for crew training/familiarisation, and to work any bugs out of the new systems.
I'm not aware of a timeline for the proposed Southern OPV - it would be nice to see that go to tender this year, but have no idea if that is realistic.

Other
OK folks, what have I missed/misunderstood/got wrong?
According to a 7 Jan posting on the RNZN facebook page, Te Kaha is due back in NZ in December 2019. It's not clear on whether Te Mana will not enter the upgrade process until then, or whether we will temporarily have a no-frigate navy.
 

beegee

Active Member
Sorry for the confusion, I had a senior moment and wrote down AEW when I meant ECM/ESM. Most modern combat aircraft and ships and subs have have such detection ability, in the subs case on one or more of their masts. Yes the ASP154 has been fitted externally to the P8 but is not a normal fitment to the standard aircraft and what I would like to see is the aircrafts normally fitted radar be changed in time for an AESA type of radar. This will eliminate it's radar output signature and make jamming of the radar almost impossible. It also makes detection of the AESA transmitting aircraft by hostile radars more difficult as it will fudge the return signal.
Just because a radar is electronically scanned rather than mechanically scanned doesn't mean it's output signature is eliminated. Where are you getting that from? The beam still needs to scan, which means it's still detectable by anything it hits.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Just because a radar is electronically scanned rather than mechanically scanned doesn't mean it's output signature is eliminated. Where are you getting that from? The beam still needs to scan, which means it's still detectable by anything it hits.
And from what I understand it's the quickness and randomness in its frequency hopping agility that is important.
 

Rob c

Active Member
Just because a radar is electronically scanned rather than mechanically scanned doesn't mean it's output signature is eliminated. Where are you getting that from? The beam still needs to scan, which means it's still detectable by anything it hits.
I would suggest that you read up on AESA radar, Basically in simple terms the radar frequency skips at more than 1000 times a second from each cell and each transmitting cell ( each AESA panel has hundreds or thousands of these) transmits at a different frequency, this means that there are hundreds of thousands or even millions of transmissions each second on different frequencies and each individual transmission on a frequency is so small that they are less than the background radio noise that is always present and therefore are hidden in this background noise. this is what makes AESA virtually impossible to detect or jam.
 
Last edited:

beegee

Active Member
I would suggest that you read up on AESA radar, Basically in simple terms the radar frequency skips at more than 1000 times a second from each cell and each transmitting cell ( each AESA panel has hundreds or thousands of these) transmits at a different frequency, this means that there are hundreds of thousands or even millions of transmissions each second on different frequencies and each individual transmission on a frequency is so small that they are less than the background radio noise that is always present and therefore are hidden in this background noise. this is what makes AESA virtually impossible to detect or jam.
If the transmission is less than the background radio noise how does it detect the reflection from the target, which is an order of magnitude lower than the transmitted pulse?

Please post your info source.
 

Rob c

Active Member
If the transmission is less than the background radio noise how does it detect the reflection from the target, which is an order of magnitude lower than the transmitted pulse?

Please post your info source.
The transmission itself is not less than the background, It is the minute individual bits that are spread over a wide frequency range that are, as I pointed out. I researched this early last year and and the year before, as an interest and don't have copies of sources as the hard drive on my computer failed. However I did post on this subject sometime ago and I think that may have indicated sources. As I suggested before, why don't you do a little research yourself as it is not hard and to be quite frank, I am getting a little tired of this. I have more interest in my great grandkids than continuing this. Try Goggle though you will have to go deeper than Wikipedia.
Another thing to think about is why do all stealth aircraft have AESA radar, answer, because if they used conventional radar they would not be stealthy as soon as they turned their radar would they.

I did a 30 second look on the internet and found a very simple article that may help you.
Understanding AESA: A Game-Changer in RADAR Technology
 
Last edited:
Top