My point about spelling out the required capabilities for a MPA/MMA could probably have been a little clearer too.
If we look at our current (P3K2) MPA, we've got a platform that has a modern E/O system (MX50), a decent radar (but only providing coverage over the frontal arc), appropriate HF/VHF/UHF radios, near obsolete satcom fit, a limited data link capability, a ESM fit that's broadly appropriate, no defensive aides, a gravity-only weapon delivery system, and an obsolete ASW capability (but with a upgrade pending).
All of that apparently meets our policy needs for an MPA, even though there are significant constraints on the environments it can operate and what targets it can engage.
If we were to shift to the USCG baseline configuration and add Harvest Hawk to it, and the use the defensive aides suite from the baseline J model Herc, we would be less contained across more of the potential roles and missions than we are now - we'd trade gravity weapons for a small set of limited stand-off weapons. The real sacrifice would be ASW potential and I say potential because as currently configured the P3K2 has only a very limited capability against these targets, both because of its sensor fit, and because the Mk-46 is likely obsolete against modern targets.In some roles (especially overland ISR), it would be significantly more capable. The P3K2 is functionally useless as a weapon delivery platform against any surface target where there is any remote possibly that target can shoot back.
My whinge with the arguments from some on this board about MPA is that the argument typically runs along the lines of
- We have an MPA now
- We need a MPA because we're an island nation
- Country X uses Y as their MPA
- Therefore the solution to our needs is Y.
Actually the NZDF has an MSA capability at present, not an MPA capability. Between the lack of both effective self-defence suites and effective weapons, the P-3K2's are really more of a maritime surveillance asset than anything else.
Across the NZDF as a whole, the Mk-46 torpedo is a bit of an issue, having reached the end of the life of type in 2010 IIRC (it might have been earlier.) If memory serves, the NZDF did have an inspection programme to examine the torpedoes in inventory, to see which were still usable, but no sort of long-term plan has been put forward, or at least none I am familiar with, to ensure that the NZDF is kitted out with an ASW capability. At a minimum, remanufacturing the current stock of Mk-46's would be in order, otherwise the RNZAF and/or the RNZN might fit itself firing one upon a hostile sub, only to have the torpedo turn out to be a dud. Or have a compromised motor. Or guidance system. Or... Given that Raytheon has put out a package to remanufacture Mk-46 torpedoes into Mk-54 torpedoes, it would seem sensible to follow that, but that does not mean that policy makers will do so.
There is also the little matter of no updates or upgrades done so that the P-3K2 can retain a submarine detection capability. Apparently this has been recognized since there is supposed to be such an upgrade coming, but for right now, I would not expect a RNZAF Orion to detect or even threaten to detect a sub in a given area.
As for the ASuW capabilities of the P-3K2, I readily admit to not having bothered to keep current on them. At best, they can be armed with AGM-65 Mavericks, though from what I have been able to gather, it looks like this capability has either been deleted, or never added. They have previously been able to drop Mk-82 bombs and fire Zuni rockets at targets. Dropping a dumb bomb onto a moving vessel would largely be a matter of luck, unless done from a very low altitude. The same goes for hitting a target with Zuni rockets.
So basically right now, the RNZAF can realistically task the Orions with detecting, tracking, and potentially reporting back a surface contact, but have to remain at long/standoff ranges. The longest ranged engagement the NZDF could engage a hostile ship with, would require one of the new SH-2G's armed with a Penguin AShM with a range of ~33 km. That would still require the Seasprite to come close enough to the target so that most warships armed with better than CIWS/VSRAAD missiles could fire upon the Seasprite before it was in range.
If in the future, policymakers wish for the NZDF to be able to participate or contribute in operations away from NZ, then the appropriate kit needs to be purchased.
As it stands now, for the maritime areas than NZ has responsibility for patrolling a vast ocean area, and apart from the Kawasaki P-1 and Boeing P-8 Poseidon, none of the maritime surveillance or patrol aircraft currently in development or production (apart from those on paper/computer) have the sort of range and time on distant stations, that NZ needs. This does not even get into the capability needs of the various sensors, the ability to be armed (and thus be an MPA, capable of attacking a contact...), have a self-protection capability, or be able to relay useful contact information to allies.
Some of the other contenders offer some of the capabilities which the NZDF needs in an MPA, based off direction and policy from Gov't, but they all fall short in one or more areas. Usually more.
If the base aircraft is too small, then it may not have the required range and endurance/time on station needed. It also might not be able to carry enough stores and crew to be useful. Or it might not be able to mount large enough or capable enough sensors, or have enough workstations onboard to utilize all sensors at the same time. Or some combination of the above.
If memory serves, the smaller C-295 Persuader MPA has consoles for four operators, while the larger P-8 Poseidon has something like 6+1 or 7+1. Meaning that the workload per system operator is less, and there is an extra console so that an extra person could perform a task during a mission if needed and available. From my POV, not needing to have the operators split their concentration between different tasks during a mission can mean the difference between success and failure on a mission, especially during times of high stress and/or fatigue, like during a crisis. Which is also when the outcome of a mission can make the most difference.
Now I doubt that NZ will purchase a 1:1 Poseidon:Orion replacement. Frankly, given the large area NZ is responsible for, I feel that current P-3K2 fleet itself is too few in number. I would like to see some sort of 2nd Tier MPA capability in NZDF service for more 'local' patrolling around NZ, as well as easily deployed to various Pacific island nations that have agreements with NZ for maritime patrol. I doubt that will happen, except possibly at the expense of a 1st Tier MPA capability. If that were to happen, I would anticipate NZ's normal allies to not invite NZ to the party during a crisis, regardless of whether the outcome would impact NZ's interests. I would not think this was happening to snub NZ, but that it would simply that the capabilities NZ could bring would be insufficient to be useful, and/or more troublesome to have than their absence would be.
