Royal New Zealand Air Force

[t68]

NG, you gone off the idea of Gripen?

 

[Todjaeger]

NG, you gone off the idea of Gripen?

Can we please not try doing a Frankenstein, attempting to jumpstart life/discussion of an RNZAF ACF. Until Gov't has the will to actually fund raising an ACF, it is not going to happen, whether or not NZ has a need or potential need for an ACF.

 

[t68]

Can we please not try doing a Frankenstein, attempting to jumpstart life/discussion of an RNZAF ACF. Until Gov't has the will to actually fund raising an ACF, it is not going to happen, whether or not NZ has a need or potential need for an ACF.

Sorry about that. Just wondering if NG has a preference for the Kfir over the gripen thats all.

 

[RegR]

Realistically how man P8 would be purchased, 4? I don't see NZG purshasing additional ASM without having the capabilty to piggy back another platform, if ADF go down the JSM track could that even be inter grated on to the Sprogs?

I can only see us realistically getting 4 due to cost however along with the touted short range AC and possibly a UAV type in the mix tasks and roles could also be split more efficiently and effectively meaning less of a one type does all and more of a job specific one and therefore should even out the overall workload. Again a good majority of tasks are not high end or even combat in nature therefore a P8 with all the bells and whistles would be generally overkill and a waste of resources.

At the moment our P3s do it all as this is our primary and only maritime patrol AC from a dinghy afloat offshore to a missing plane onshore to a submarine lurking underwater and as every task is different with overall different requirements sometimes inefficient, sometimes ineffective (at the moment), sometimes over qualified and sometimes under utilised, not VFM at all in a way.

 

[40 deg south]

I can only see us realistically getting 4 due to cost however along with the touted short range AC and possibly a UAV type in the mix tasks and roles could also be split more efficiently and effectively meaning less of a one type does all and more of a job specific one and therefore should even out the overall workload. Again a good majority of tasks are not high end or even combat in nature therefore a P8 with all the bells and whistles would be generally overkill and a waste of resources.

At the moment our P3s do it all as this is our primary and only maritime patrol AC from a dinghy afloat offshore to a missing plane onshore to a submarine lurking underwater and as every task is different with overall different requirements sometimes inefficient, sometimes ineffective (at the moment), sometimes over qualified and sometimes under utilised, not VFM at all in a way.

The risk is that if NZDF buys a lower-tier MPA (for example, a C295 or a converted Saab/Bombardier twin-turboprop), this could be used as an excuse by a future government not to fund a high-end replacement.

I'm sure this will be taxing the minds of NZDFs leadership, or it ought to be. For this reason, I suspect that any MPA purchase prior to the P-3C retirement/ replacement will be at the bottom end of the range. Think KIngAir rather than C295.

Alternatively, I could be talking complete bollocks...

 

[RegR]

The risk is that if NZDF buys a lower-tier MPA (for example, a C295 or a converted Saab/Bombardier twin-turboprop), this could be used as an excuse by a future government not to fund a high-end replacement.

I'm sure this will be taxing the minds of NZDFs leadership, or it ought to be. For this reason, I suspect that any MPA purchase prior to the P-3C retirement/ replacement will be at the bottom end of the range. Think KIngAir rather than C295.

Alternatively, I could be talking complete bollocks...

Is always a possibility with this govt but the proof is in the requirement. Govt knows we are already limited in what we can do, provide and offer not only to NZ but globally and this adds value in itself. The axing of the combat wing ruffled some feathers and actually took us back a few seats in the bus even if no one will openly say it, just think what any further degradation of what capabilities we have left will do? I think maritime patrol is something we excel at and a major consideration especially for NZ so give our boys and girls the tools required to do it to their best ability otherwise they are limited from the start.

To fully complete isolationism and baulk on our commitments all we would need to do is not replace the ANZACs with like for like, refrain from international deployments, shrink our army even further then we can happily sit on our hands, close our mouths and live in our bubble while the world does its thing around us.

I would seriously not consider the C295 platform a suitable replacement for the P3/P8 for our current and more importantly future requirements but more a supplement for low to mid taskings (king air would only cover low) therefore unless we go through yet another fancy force direction change and it heads in the complete opposite direction a waste of available resources and yet still a strain in the high end range gear.

In other words we would be silly not to suitably replace this capability fully and allow for future growth and just as silly not to have an adequate cover to take a good portion of the pressure off (vs a limited portion) especially for such a small fleet(s).

Sometimes you gotta spend money to save money otherwise you are just wasting it anyway.

 

[Zero Alpha]

If the aim of the often talked about second tier platform is to simply free up the primary platform, then for most most tasks a transport with an optical turret would work. Putting a MX-25 in a permanent mount or something like Lightning under a wing pylon and a two person crew station in the back would be fine for most EEZ tasks.

Compliance operations in the EEZ aren't that difficult. Most of the work is recording where fishing boats are (and checking that against quota declarations), checking their fishing type and making sure they're not in closed areas. While the EEZ is large, most of the fishing happens in relatively confined areas, and the larger (licensed) boats need to have AIS anyway. Anything over a certain size not pinging its location tends to stand out...

 

[Todjaeger]

Compliance operations in the EEZ aren't that difficult. Most of the work is recording where fishing boats are (and checking that against quota declarations), checking their fishing type and making sure they're not in closed areas. While the EEZ is large, most of the fishing happens in relatively confined areas, and the larger (licensed) boats need to have AIS anyway. Anything over a certain size not pinging its location tends to stand out...

I do not quite agree that EEZ patrolling is not difficult. Fairly straightforward in terms of what needs to be done, yes, easy not so much. The phrase, "easier said than done..." comes to mind.

One of the things which is needed (and one of the difficulties many of the lower tiered options encounter) is the need to actually get sight of the possible target. Some of the more remote areas of NZ's EEZ patrol responsibilities are quite distant. Just getting to the areas is a challenge.

Then there is detecting the target, which in some areas and sea states can be quite difficult, especially if it is not broadcasting a transponder signal. Then the contact's position needs to be determined (i.e. is it actually in NZ's EEZ, or just outside) as well as what it is doing. Is the vessel just transiting through an area? Or is the vessel fishing, and if fishing are legal nets being used, or banned ones? If the vessel is not just in transit but not fishing either, what is it doing, might it perhaps be dumping garbage and/or toxins?

Then there is also the SAR aspect. Back in ~1991-1993 the USCG did testing to determine the degree of accuracy in searching for smallcraft or lifeboats at 16 n mile and 32 n mile range bands with aircraft (I believe it was P-3's) flying at ~1,500 and ~3,000 feet. One of the things learned was that in one set of parameters, the aircraft detected the lifeboat ~60 times, out of ~600 potential contacts in a given search box. Granted this was just over two decades ago, the aircraft's sea search radar is the same one used by most P-3C Orion's today.

Having just a couple of limited sensors mounted to something like a King Air is better than just using the Mk I eyeball, or not having anything aloft. One does need to keep in mind such a capability is quite limited and in a number of circumstances would be ineffective.

 

[Zero Alpha]

One of the things which is needed (and one of the difficulties many of the lower tiered options encounter) is the need to actually get sight of the possible target. Some of the more remote areas of NZ's EEZ patrol responsibilities are quite distant. Just getting to the areas is a challenge.

Some is the key word. Going from memory here, but approx 80% of the EEZ is within a couple of hours flying time of a commercial civilian airport. The truely remote parts are only a small percentage, and could potentially be left for larger assets to deal with.

Then there is detecting the target, which in some areas and sea states can be quite difficult, especially if it is not broadcasting a transponder signal. Then the contact's position needs to be determined (i.e. is it actually in NZ's EEZ, or just outside) as well as what it is doing. Is the vessel just transiting through an area? Or is the vessel fishing, and if fishing are legal nets being used, or banned ones? If the vessel is not just in transit but not fishing either, what is it doing, might it perhaps be dumping garbage and/or toxins?

Most commercial fishing vessels have comparatively large radar cross sections. Some work I was involved in had detection ranges on a typical hoki trawler of around 10 miles from a fixed shore installation in SS5.

Then there is also the SAR aspect. Back in ~1991-1993 the USCG did testing to determine the degree of accuracy in searching for smallcraft or lifeboats at 16 n mile and 32 n mile range bands with aircraft (I believe it was P-3's) flying at ~1,500 and ~3,000 feet. One of the things learned was that in one set of parameters, the aircraft detected the lifeboat ~60 times, out of ~600 potential contacts in a given search box. Granted this was just over two decades ago, the aircraft's sea search radar is the same one used by most P-3C Orion's today.

I'm familiar with the research. I've also spoken at length with the taco on the P-3 that acted as OSC for the Princess Ashika. IMO Life rafts aren't a challenging target set these days (most categories require radar reflectors). People in the water are another issue altogether, and the P-3 isn't great at that (you need more space for Eyeballs than the observers's window in the P-3 allows). The reality is that SAR missions are often mentioned by by Air Force and Navy, but the reality is they are an ever decreasing set of work. More time was spent by the P-3s in the Indian Ocean last year than on 'local' tasks. Before the Hueys retired the ratio of scheduled multiagency SAR training time to operational flight hours on SAR tasks was something like 5:1 (including transit from Ohakea).

Having just a couple of limited sensors mounted to something like a King Air is better than just using the Mk I eyeball, or not having anything aloft. One does need to keep in mind such a capability is quite limited and in a number of circumstances would be ineffective.

The UK has mounted the MX-20 on Chinooks. We could mount one on a King Air. More often than not in the NZ environment having someone who can act as an on scene coordinator is more valuable than another aircraft doing search patterns. We're not short on near-shore search platforms in NZ.

 

[ngatimozart]

Some is the key word. Going from memory here, but approx 80% of the EEZ is within a couple of hours flying time of a commercial civilian airport. The truely remote parts are only a small percentage, and could potentially be left for larger assets to deal with.

Most commercial fishing vessels have comparatively large radar cross sections. Some work I was involved in had detection ranges on a typical hoki trawler of around 10 miles from a fixed shore installation in SS5.

I'm familiar with the research. I've also spoken at length with the taco on the P-3 that acted as OSC for the Princess Ashika. IMO Life rafts aren't a challenging target set these days (most categories require radar reflectors). People in the water are another issue altogether, and the P-3 isn't great at that (you need more space for Eyeballs than the observers's window in the P-3 allows). The reality is that SAR missions are often mentioned by by Air Force and Navy, but the reality is they are an ever decreasing set of work. More time was spent by the P-3s in the Indian Ocean last year than on 'local' tasks. Before the Hueys retired the ratio of scheduled multiagency SAR training time to operational flight hours on SAR tasks was something like 5:1 (including transit from Ohakea).

The UK has mounted the MX-20 on Chinooks. We could mount one on a King Air. More often than not in the NZ environment having someone who can act as an on scene coordinator is more valuable than another aircraft doing search patterns. We're not short on near-shore search platforms in NZ.

Some points.

Most NZs SAR airborne search is done by civilian aircraft using the Mk 1 eyeball and / or listening for or homing in on a distress beacon. The RNZAF generally appear to only get called in when it gets into the difficult phase.

What do you define as near shore? I worked in coastal science so to me that could be 2 nautical miles or closer, hence it's a relative term. Generally I would think anything within say 12 nautical miles or more. Maybe coastal or similar would be another term. It's difficult in a way because in some places in NZ ( e.g., Kaikoura) you go 5 miles off shore and you are in 1000+ metres of water. In fact off Kaikoura it's 2000 metres deep. So if you use blue or green water Yes I realise it's semantics but the term does convey the spatial context. A mariner would see it different too. Since light aircraft, mostly single engined, are used I would hazard a guess at maybe around the 50 nautical mile mark.

It's very difficult to spot something in the water even on a good day when the sun is shining and the sea is calm with no wind. Know that from personal experience both looking from an aircraft and from a ship using the Mk 1 eyeball. So the current system is somewhat primitive given the technology available today.

The King Air 350 ER would suit especially if fitted with something along the lines of the Selex SeaSpray 7500 which would be a very good fit for the aircraft. It only weighs 110kg. With an E/O turret and secure comms plus its long range, this would be actually quite an effective option for EEZ patrol. It could also handle some basic ISR taskings as well with this capability. Numbers would be the issue, but with say six we just barely scrap through with six of these and four MMA / MPA.

From what I could see the Garmin MX20 is a GPS based instrument for displaying various sensor data in a geographic map form, not a sensor in itself.

 

[Zero Alpha]

Most NZs SAR airborne search is done by civilian aircraft using the Mk 1 eyeball and / or listening for or homing in on a distress beacon. The RNZAF generally appear to only get called in when it gets into the difficult phase.

For helicopter based work difficult = expensive. Police and RCCNZ don't pay for RNZAF time. They pay for civilian operators. RNZAF is on 2hrs notice to move for SAR. Civilian operators are contracted to be airborne within 15 minutes (ACC contracted air rescue choppers). But my point is that really the days of the bulk of the SAR effort coming from defence are long gone. We're now overrun with rescue choppers flown by crews generally significantly more experienced than defence crews.

What do you define as near shore? I worked in coastal science so to me that could be 2 nautical miles or closer, hence it's a relative term. Generally I would think anything within say 12 nautical miles or more. Maybe coastal or similar would be another term. It's difficult in a way because in some places in NZ ( e.g., Kaikoura) you go 5 miles off shore and you are in 1000+ metres of water. In fact off Kaikoura it's 2000 metres deep. So if you use blue or green water Yes I realise it's semantics but the term does convey the spatial context. A mariner would see it different too. Since light aircraft, mostly single engined, are used I would hazard a guess at maybe around the 50 nautical mile mark.

From memory RCCNZ use something like 25NM - mainly based on safe distance in the event of a single engine failure on a twin engine machine I think (I realise that it's a bit of a moot point on a lot of platforms)

It's very difficult to spot something in the water even on a good day when the sun is shining and the sea is calm with no wind. Know that from personal experience both looking from an aircraft and from a ship using the Mk 1 eyeball. So the current system is somewhat primitive given the technology available today.

Me too. The issue is really around fields of view and how small the targets are if it's a man in the late scenario. It won't be long before sensors pass the Mk1 for people, but at the moment I don't think the technology is really there. Maybe it is, but from what the taco told me the MX-20 still wasn't a substitute for eyes out the windows. The FLIRs I've used on workboats would pick up a person reliably at 1-2km depending on the swell, but again with a very narrow field of view.

From what I could see the Garmin MX20 is a GPS based instrument for displaying various sensor data in a geographic map form, not a sensor in itself.

Not a GPS, this thing (as used in the P-3K2, UK Chinook and P-8):

WESCAM's MX-20: EO IR ISR Sytems for Persistent Surveillance

 

[ngatimozart]

Not a GPS, this thing (as used in the P-3K2, UK Chinook and P-8):

WESCAM's MX-20: EO IR ISR Sytems for Persistent Surveillance

Thanks for that. I see that they have an image of a King Air

 

[ngatimozart]

Sorry about that. Just wondering if NG has a preference for the Kfir over the gripen thats all.

No I haven't but the price of ~US$500 million for a reconditioned Kfir compared to ~US$1.25 billion for 18 Gripen E fly away would appeal very much to the pollies and bean counters IF they decided to go down that track. Yes, I haven't mentioned all the other sustainment and setup costs but they would be incurred regardless of what was acquired.

Is always a possibility with this govt but the proof is in the requirement. Govt knows we are already limited in what we can do, provide and offer not only to NZ but globally and this adds value in itself. The axing of the combat wing ruffled some feathers and actually took us back a few seats in the bus even if no one will openly say it, just think what any further degradation of what capabilities we have left will do? I think maritime patrol is something we excel at and a major consideration especially for NZ so give our boys and girls the tools required to do it to their best ability otherwise they are limited from the start.

I agree wholeheartedly. We did the strike thing, especially maritime strike, very well with the ACF, but that counted for nowt when certain pollies got involved.

To fully complete isolationism and baulk on our commitments all we would need to do is not replace the ANZACs with like for like, refrain from international deployments, shrink our army even further then we can happily sit on our hands, close our mouths and live in our bubble while the world does its thing around us.

If that was to occur that would, IMHO, destroy the defence relationship between NZ and Australia. The following is taken from my submission to the 2015 DWP

New Zealand has lost mana in the eyes of Australia and the wider region because of its lack of commitment to defence. The ANZAC defence relationship with Australia is our most important defence relationship and this has been jeopardised in recent time due to New Zealand defence capability decisions which have resulted in New Zealand not pulling its weight in regional defence like it used too. It has been suggested that some elements in Australia see New Zealand as free riding off Australia defence wise and given some decisions that have been made this may be hard to dispute. Statements by Helen Clark denying that New Zealand and Australia were a 'single strategic entity' and that we existed in a 'incredibly benign strategic environment', her decision to disband the air combat force, not to purchase a third frigate and only partially upgrade the P3K Orions, significantly reduced NZDF capabilities for contributing to the defence of Australia. This lead to one Australian defence analyst to state that New Zealand is now a strategic liability, which is a fair description because the present force structure and levels, prevents complete participation in exercises, such as Pitch Black in the Northern Territory, or with the Five Power Defence Agreement (FPDA) that is both air and sea intensive.

The 2010 Defence White Paper states that: "Australia is our principal defence and security partner. We have no better friend and no closer ally. A wide range of political, economic, social, and security connections underpin what has become a common trans-Tasman space. We would therefore immediately respond to any direct attack on Australia. New Zealand’s own security is enhanced by the investment which Australia has made in its national defence. Australia has military capabilities that we do not have, but which are essential for higher-end contingencies. The ANZAC relationship enhances the overall depth and reach of the NZDF. It is therefore in our interest to add to Australia’s strategic weight." This is a clear and unequivocal statement, yet in practice actions speak louder than words and this statement has not been followed up during the intervening five years with concise actions. There has been very minimal increases in defence expenditure with defence expenditure remaining at around 1.2 - 1.4 % of GDP and there have been cuts in personnel and services since 2009 which have reduced the overall effectiveness of the NZDF. For example in the 2015 budget a total of $3.3 billion has been appropriated for defence that when calculated as a percentage of GDP on the 2014 GDP figure of $229.7 billion is 1.4 % of GDP with no real increase in capability whilst Australia's defence budget is at 1.8% of GDP and heading to 2% GDP. Basically the New Zealand defence budget is standing still in dollar terms and what is important is that it's buying power is potentially decreasing. That buying power is the more important factor at the moment when new equipment is required.53 Relative to Australia, New Zealand's defence capabilities have been depleted since 1999 and no longer have the ability of supporting the Australian Defence Force as we once did. Hence the reason why Australia no longer sees New Zealand as an essential partner in its defence triad being replaced by Japan.

New Zealand can no longer afford to have the attitude and belief that others will step up and carry New Zealands slack in defence, especially when they have issues of their own. We have to take capabilities to the table to be part of any alliance or coalition and most importantly we have to be self sufficient not being a liability, which is how were are being perceived by our closest defence partner. Sending some cooks and vehicle refuellers as the NZDF component of an international exercise, because that is all that we could send is pathetic (Pitch Black 2014). New Zealand has to dramatically increase its commitment to its defence in substantive ways so that we can regain the trust and respect of Australia.

Sources:
Baker, S. (2010, 22 September 2010). After Skyhawk folly, let's look closer to home. The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 22 April 2013, from Editorial : After Skyhawk folly, let's look closer to home - National - NZ Herald News.
Davies, A. (2014). NZ defence capability: running to stand still The Strategist 7 July 2014. Retrieved 16 July 2014, from NZ defence capability: running to stand still
Defence White Paper 2010 (2010). Ministry of Defence 2 November 2010. Retrieved 4 October 2011, from http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/defence-review-2009-defence-white-paper-final.pdf
Dobell, G. (2014). The new relationship of Japan and Australia The Strategist 14 July 2014. Retrieved 20 July 2014, from The new relationship of Japan and Australia
Keating, G. (2004). Opportunities and Obstacles: Future Australian and New Zealand Cooperation on Defence and Security Issues. Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University Working Paper No 391. Retrieved 18 June 2015, from http://ips.cap.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/WP-SDSC-391.pdf
National Accounts (Income and Expenditure): Year ended March 2014 – corrected (2015). Statistics New Zealand 30 January 2015. Retrieved 20 June 2015, from National Accounts (Income and Expenditure): Year ended March 2014 – corrected
Vote Defence - The Estimates Of Appropriations 2015/16 (2015). Treasury 21 May 2015. Retrieved 20 June 2015, from http://www.budget.govt.nz/budget/pdfs/estimates/v4/est15-v4-defen.pdf

I would seriously not consider the C295 platform a suitable replacement for the P3/P8 for our current and more importantly future requirements but more a supplement for low to mid taskings (king air would only cover low) therefore unless we go through yet another fancy force direction change and it heads in the complete opposite direction a waste of available resources and yet still a strain in the high end range gear.

In other words we would be silly not to suitably replace this capability fully and allow for future growth and just as silly not to have an adequate cover to take a good portion of the pressure off (vs a limited portion) especially for such a small fleet(s).

Sometimes you gotta spend money to save money otherwise you are just wasting it anyway.

Yes you are right and I think that the B350ER with the sensors suggested in previous post would work in with the P8 or P1 although, IMHO, the P8 would be the better platform.

 

[RegR]

I agree wholeheartedly. We did the strike thing, especially maritime strike, very well with the ACF, but that counted for nowt when certain pollies got involved.

If that was to occur that would, IMHO, destroy the defence relationship between NZ and Australia. The following is taken from my submission to the 2015 DWP



Yes you are right and I think that the B350ER with the sensors suggested in previous post would work in with the P8 or P1 although, IMHO, the P8 would be the better platform.

Exactly, which is why I think govt cannot afford (literally) to skimp on these major capabilities coming up for renewal and in fact should be looking to build upon to show our partners we are still committed to regional and international commitments (too far gone for a ACF sadly) by providing quality in what we have left and can ultimately bring to the table as a multiplier and not a 'liability'. It is going to cost a packet but money ultimately well spent with tangible benefits for not only us but our friends and allies overall.

The current P3 fleet requires a suitable little brother to help relieve the pressure and take on the 'naff' stuff so no doubt the future replacement will as well especially if condensed into a smaller fleet (of like or better capability ie P8) therefore I think the smaller simpler version should be a priority not a possibility. I only suggest a C295 type size for considerations such as range, endurance, time on station, onboard options, crew comfort, future growth etc and synergies with a potential viable transport version also come into play. The B350 type size would also be good and obviously cheaper but the smaller platform also relates to all of the above, depends on the amount and level of work they want to take off the high end platforms I guess. Extra cost here could equate to savings elsewhere within the maritime spectrum.

One thing is for sure I don't think we can sustain a one horse show and a tiered system is definitely a more effective option for not only this but a lot of future projects such as air transport, naval combat force, armoured vehicles just to name a few. It does ultimately add 'cost' with multiple types and shrink fleets but just need to find that happy and workable median.

 

[Zero Alpha]

Putting it out there as a red herring, with the potential replacement of the 757s with something more agricultural, a business jet might be able to handle the low tier air patrol, VIP and aeromedical evac missions. Something like a Global 8000 would do nicely

 

[Kiwigov]

Putting it out there as a red herring, with the potential replacement of the 757s with something more agricultural, a business jet might be able to handle the low tier air patrol, VIP and aeromedical evac missions. Something like a Global 8000 would do nicely

While taxpayers would prefer a smaller bird, I think the pollies - of whatever party - definitely prefer the reach and scale that a dedicated 757 (or similar) provides, especially for 'NZ Inc' trade missions and media attendance.
An article in today's NZ Herald highlights the amenities of the 757 for PM, officials, businesspeople and (many) media on the way to APEC (reads like the RNZAF crew are almost doing too good a job).
Given our focus on China and ASEAN, and the need for future such political/trade missions, I imagine whatever 'right-sized' VIP option is put forward in a Cabinet paper will be shot down when Ministers compare seating arrangements!

 

[ngatimozart]

While taxpayers would prefer a smaller bird, I think the pollies - of whatever party - definitely prefer the reach and scale that a dedicated 757 (or similar) provides, especially for 'NZ Inc' trade missions and media attendance.
An article in today's NZ Herald highlights the amenities of the 757 for PM, officials, businesspeople and (many) media on the way to APEC (reads like the RNZAF crew are almost doing too good a job).
Given our focus on China and ASEAN, and the need for future such political/trade missions, I imagine whatever 'right-sized' VIP option is put forward in a Cabinet paper will be shot down when Ministers compare seating arrangements!

Yep, and I can't see them slumming around in the back of a a C130 or a A400 The choice will be interesting in that range and pax / load capacity will be critical. A B737 will have be short legged with to many tech stops required. An A321 neo might be borderline. That leaves the B767 or A330-200 which has a setting capacity of about 30 - 40 more than the current RNZAF B757s. Maybe a couple of A330-200s fitted out like the MRTT but without the refuelling option or B767s done the same way. Then a A320 / 321 or a smaller business jet for the quick dashes across the ditch or VIP flights around NZ etc. We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[t68]

Yep, and I can't see them slumming around in the back of a a C130 or a A400 The choice will be interesting in that range and pax / load capacity will be critical. A B737 will have be short legged with to many tech stops required. An A321 neo might be borderline. That leaves the B767 or A330-200 which has a setting capacity of about 30 - 40 more than the current RNZAF B757s. Maybe a couple of A330-200s fitted out like the MRTT but without the refuelling option or B767s done the same way. Then a A320 / 321 or a smaller business jet for the quick dashes across the ditch or VIP flights around NZ etc. We'll just have to wait and see.

Well you were saying the other day about interoperability between the ADF and NZDF, whilst most NZ's would disagree with the idea it would a provide service which can be used by both local and coalition partner's with MRTT. It aso enhance goverment's standing within the international community, and it also gives goverment options without putting serviceman in anymore danger than they have to whilst also providing local troop/freight or VIP air movements. Might cost a bit more but it would tie into what you were saying the other day.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Then there is also the SAR aspect. Back in ~1991-1993 the USCG did testing to determine the degree of accuracy in searching for smallcraft or lifeboats at 16 n mile and 32 n mile range bands with aircraft (I believe it was P-3's) flying at ~1,500 and ~3,000 feet. One of the things learned was that in one set of parameters, the aircraft detected the lifeboat ~60 times, out of ~600 potential contacts in a given search box. Granted this was just over two decades ago, the aircraft's sea search radar is the same one used by most P-3C Orion's today.

Having just a couple of limited sensors mounted to something like a King Air is better than just using the Mk I eyeball, or not having anything aloft. One does need to keep in mind such a capability is quite limited and in a number of circumstances would be ineffective.

One of the reasons RAAF Orions were popular in the MEAO was due to their IR sensor capability - it was pulling in things that the non digitial P3's struggled with

I did some evaluation work on both hot and cold FLIR a few years back - cold FLIR was night and day - I could see people moving around in a passenger aircraft 5km distant - from 3km I could count kangaroos in a thickly wooded forest - at 3 km I could see people clothes shifting against their body when jogging.

add that capability + the classified bits and you can see what a difference cold FLIR makes to SAR in a very cold ocean - even at 30,000ft and with their sensor sweep area factored in on each run

the P8's are an order of magnitude more capable - they really make even the RAAF digital orion upgrades look old hat (as you would expect). Arguably the digital upgrades on the AP3 Orions are regarded as the best of breed,. but they pale against the P8. (MH370 search comparison)

 

[ngatimozart]

Well you were saying the other day about interoperability between the ADF and NZDF, whilst most NZ's would disagree with the idea it would a provide service which can be used by both local and coalition partner's with MRTT. It aso enhance goverment's standing within the international community, and it also gives goverment options without putting serviceman in anymore danger than they have to whilst also providing local troop/freight or VIP air movements. Might cost a bit more but it would tie into what you were saying the other day.

I did say like MRTT but without the refueling option. Hence I meant no AAR capability, so forget the tanker bit. Maybe I should've phrased it better.