Do you have a link to the actual article? Thanks
edit: Bugger, I just saw that it's not free - http://politik.co.nz/en/content/for...OON-HAVE-TO-RETREAT-Defence-Treasury-F16s.htm
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
edit: Bugger, I just saw that it's not free - http://politik.co.nz/en/content/for...OON-HAVE-TO-RETREAT-Defence-Treasury-F16s.htm
I managed to grab it as a free copy when I was specifically searching for the article. Go back there and try the the sites search engine to access it. That's all I can suggest, sorry. I do keep copies of articles that I find I need just in case I cannot access them again later.
Whilst I agree with you, Realpolitik suggests that we don't have a much of a choice if we want to retain platform numbers at their current levels. Four aircraft are not enough and are below the absolute minimum credible force level that has been inflicted on NZDF now. Regardless of the platform capability set, four P8 will be a reduction in overall capability for NZDF because four aircraft cannot physically be in the same place as six aircraft at the same time, no matter how much political posturing and disingenuity by politicians and Treasury, four or less (gawd help us) is a major reduction in capability. Numbers do have a quality of their own especially when we have such small numbers of aircraft available to us to cover such a large area and meet taskings. The EEZ aircraft are are different capability set and yes will take pressure off the P3K2 fleet but they do not fill all the roles.
Unless there is a major recap investment by the NZG four P8 are look at around NZ$2.6 billion, six close to NZ$4 billion (you might get some change - not much). Whilst the SAAB platform may not have all the bells and whistles of the P8, it still is an advance on the P3K2 and it offers endurance that the P8 does not have without AAR. I am sure that SAAB could add appropriate SIGINT capabilities upon request. Another option is the ELTA ELI-3360 MPA based on the Bombardier G5000. This Israeli option does have SIGINT option included and I would think that they could integrate the ELI-3600 into the G6000 if requested. That would increase the range.
Last edited:
NG
Firstly, where are these P-8 costings coming from and what is the methodology behind their calculation? I am assuming you are possibly including WoL factors.
Also the lack of numbers angle neglects to add the additional MISR component likely to be coming from a further cheaper platform viz a possible B-350-ER based platform. Freeing up the P-8 for more directed taskings than what is currently conducted using the 6 P-3K2s. There are hundreds of hours of current tasking outputs where a P-3K2 is used but essentially wasteful.
Also the mooted 4 P-8s are expected to fly more annual taskings hours than the current 6 P-3K2's.
Update:
I see you are likely to be basing costings from the Australian procurement model. Around $2.0B was the figure I got from a Q&A with Brownlee and Mitchell last year.
Firstly, where are these P-8 costings coming from and what is the methodology behind their calculation? I am assuming you are possibly including WoL factors.
Also the lack of numbers angle neglects to add the additional MISR component likely to be coming from a further cheaper platform viz a possible B-350-ER based platform. Freeing up the P-8 for more directed taskings than what is currently conducted using the 6 P-3K2s. There are hundreds of hours of current tasking outputs where a P-3K2 is used but essentially wasteful.
Also the mooted 4 P-8s are expected to fly more annual taskings hours than the current 6 P-3K2's.
Update:
I see you are likely to be basing costings from the Australian procurement model. Around $2.0B was the figure I got from a Q&A with Brownlee and Mitchell last year.
Last edited:
I've taken the flyaway cost from here which I found appeared to be middle of the road in figures I obtained from different searches. Yes I have included the WoL factors in and did a rough calculation of 250% of flyaway cost. yes I realise that the NZG do their WoL modelling differently from others but it would be a mid range guesstimate. The point I'm really getting at is that we are not in a position to further reduce any capabilities we have. Yes the King Airs have a MISR possibility but they are not weapons carriers. So what do they do if detect a hostile? For example if we have four P8s one or two may be offshore across the other side of the world, one maybe in bits in the hangar and the last is u/s because the rubber band is broke. Granted that is a rarity but the probability exists and that cannot be ignored. The posture of minimum credible forces for NZ now is an absolute fallacy and a political excuse for not doing anything. TBH why bother spending the NZ$4 billion or whatever is budgeted for the P3K2 and ANZAC replacement if they are just going to urinate it against a wall, because that for all intents and purposes that is what's happening with regard to NZDF funding.
Six first tier MPA is an absolute capability minimum with a further six or so B350 or similar third+ tier MSA. The traditional roles of 5 Sqn have been expanded with the ISR capability of the P3K2, hence taskings increase and personnel numbers have decreased. You can only push personnel and machines so far and the pollies, bean counters and others should remember that.
Last edited:
Those 4 P-8's will be fully integrated into BAMS in concert with USN and ADF assets. Nothing else we bring to the table will provide that capability spectrum.
Your solution would have us at a degree of arms length. Integration provides the synergies.
Your solution would have us at a degree of arms length. Integration provides the synergies.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Indeed, I forgot about the C-2. It will be interesting to see which twin engine jet transport delivers an export order first, the KC390 or the C-2.
C-2 still has to get over the foreign cert requirements. That may take some time as the C-X started as a domestic project. KC-390 is well ahead in that it was designed from the get go with FMS in mind. Not the case with the C-2 as the project started before even Koizumi was in office.
That presupposes that we acquire Triton, which is not a given. Actually NZ acquisition of the P8 is not a given either.
Integration or compatibility does not have to be exactly the same platform. In today's world it is all about data and data manipulation, hence it's more about my platform being able to converse with your platform and Gary's C2 across the way being able to direct Bob over the ditch to action it. Therefore the integration is more in the ability of the systems to communicate with each other. Link 16 and 22 are one format. CEC as used by the USN and RAN another. I wonder if we are becoming specific platform fixated here at the expense of a wider view which we are all quite capable and guilty of it. What I'm concerned about is that the determined view of a very low number of P8s and the implied possibility that Triton will be acquired has created a narrowing field of view, possibly restricting openness to other possibilities. There is too much at stake riding on to many unknowns and uncertainties.
On another note, whilst I was looking at the IAI website I had a look at their CAEW page. Since we don't have an ACF, I wonder whether say three of these would be a worthwhile investment. They are definitely a force multiplier and would be a welcome addition to an allied or coalition group. They would also have anti terrorism, potential law enforcement and HADR capacity as well. This is just an idea about bringing more value to the alphabet group table that would be cost effective. The flyaway cost is US$91.9 million. Food for thought.
Like the KC390, the C2 has had funding issues during its development. Do you think that this will change for the better now, because the export restrictions have been eased?
On another subject I wonder if Airbus has given thought to upscaling the A400M to say around a 60 or 79 tonne capacity and giving it jet engines. Wouldn't be a silly idea now that the C17A is no longer manufactured.
Last edited:
Not only outside of their purview but completely outside their area of compancey.
Remember that P-8 within BAMS is significantly about the protocols and their impact of inside and outside the FYES relationships. Triton, and further WGS access will already be in the Infrastructure mix via the USN and ADF so it is not as predisposed that we have Triton. Worried about numbers and cash - buy a supplementary UAS system.
You are correct there is too much riding on this for us not to be still inside the very privileged tent that we are in. I will let your imagination dwell on the significance of that - the advantages of that. MISR is the one area where the current NZ Govt is not going to faff around.
My view is very hardline. Anything less than a BAMS partnership is weak and unprotected.
Speaking of the Kawasaki C-2, this just in:
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/mil-log/japans-c-2-aircraft-enters-service/
As a thought experiment, an interesting case could be put for RNZAF's own 'Option J' replacement air fleet. I wonder if the Japanese or NZG have considered it. We are happy to buy most of the country's motor vehicle fleet off them, and I think Japan holds a reasonable portion of NZ's strategic oil reserve. Maybe we could get a bulk discount
:.
Anyway, here goes:
OT: there have been some interesting questions to parliament recently. Worth keeping an eye on. The Defence White Paper is coming in a few weeks apparently. It had better be spectacular - we are running desperately short on time to replace the major equipment.
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/mil-log/japans-c-2-aircraft-enters-service/
As a thought experiment, an interesting case could be put for RNZAF's own 'Option J' replacement air fleet. I wonder if the Japanese or NZG have considered it. We are happy to buy most of the country's motor vehicle fleet off them, and I think Japan holds a reasonable portion of NZ's strategic oil reserve. Maybe we could get a bulk discount
:.Anyway, here goes:
- Kawasaki C-2 (say a minimum of 3) as a strategic lifter. Can carry the NH90 & LAV-3. Not as great off-piste perhaps as the A400M, but does NZ really need that from a strategic transport? Supplement with C-130J and C-27J / C295 for tactical transport duties.
- A 767-200ER combi conversion (that uses the same engines as the C-2 - the GE CF6-80C2), similar to the Israeli & Columbian MMTT for VIP & cargo transport, could even be a tanker as well. Japan & Italy also have 767-200ER tanker conversions in service (the US is introducing the KC-46 Pegasus, but with P&W engines). Keeps the politicians happy.
- 2nd-hand P-3C Orions (they have something close to 100 in-service & the youngest are only 25 years old), or
- Kawasaki P-1
OT: there have been some interesting questions to parliament recently. Worth keeping an eye on. The Defence White Paper is coming in a few weeks apparently. It had better be spectacular - we are running desperately short on time to replace the major equipment.
The UK is heading down the P-8 track and possibly Triton to come. The US State Dept had given it the green light following the Cameron Govt request for nine. The P-1 ruled out as most expected.
The P-1 and C-2 will not be the bargain many people think they are going to be. The P-1 flyaway cost is only about JPY3.3B or USD$30m less than the P-8. The cost and capability does not make for a compelling alternative to the P-8. There will be follow on orders. I think Canada even with a Squishy like Trudeau is likely to go P-8 / Triton. Norway as well could also head into the P-8 zone.
Chris to answer your question. Does NZ need strategic air transport to carry our outside loads? Of course we do. The ability to place assets such as LAV or NH-90 or a whole raft of material in HADR responses at speed is huge. Also a deployed NH-90 that has gone u/s is not something I want taking the slow boat home using potentially 'unsecure' channels. A couple of second hand or long term leased C-17s should not be discounted yet with respect to the RNZAF. They have not been officially discounted. An exportable C-2 is eventually likely to end up around the A400M mark and could even go north depending on currency fluctuations.
FVEYS membership is the most important international relationship we as a nation will have over the next 40-50 years. In fact it is our best defence! Short changing ourselves with slightly cheaper, more inferior capability options totally undermines that relationship thus undermining our national security position. How we deal with the ISR context in the years ahead is predicated on that partnership foundation we are fortunate to have. It is that simple.
The P-1 and C-2 will not be the bargain many people think they are going to be. The P-1 flyaway cost is only about JPY3.3B or USD$30m less than the P-8. The cost and capability does not make for a compelling alternative to the P-8. There will be follow on orders. I think Canada even with a Squishy like Trudeau is likely to go P-8 / Triton. Norway as well could also head into the P-8 zone.
Chris to answer your question. Does NZ need strategic air transport to carry our outside loads? Of course we do. The ability to place assets such as LAV or NH-90 or a whole raft of material in HADR responses at speed is huge. Also a deployed NH-90 that has gone u/s is not something I want taking the slow boat home using potentially 'unsecure' channels. A couple of second hand or long term leased C-17s should not be discounted yet with respect to the RNZAF. They have not been officially discounted. An exportable C-2 is eventually likely to end up around the A400M mark and could even go north depending on currency fluctuations.
FVEYS membership is the most important international relationship we as a nation will have over the next 40-50 years. In fact it is our best defence! Short changing ourselves with slightly cheaper, more inferior capability options totally undermines that relationship thus undermining our national security position. How we deal with the ISR context in the years ahead is predicated on that partnership foundation we are fortunate to have. It is that simple.
An interesting selection, however I am not a fan of the 130J as it is a bit like Grandads old axe with a new handle, and the bulk of the technology is getting very old and given how long we keep equipment we would wind up with gear were the technology is over 100 years old and it only offers a relatively small improvement over our 130H'sSpeaking of the Kawasaki C-2, this just in:
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/mil-log/japans-c-2-aircraft-enters-service/
As a thought experiment, an interesting case could be put for RNZAF's own 'Option J' replacement air fleet. I wonder if the Japanese or NZG have considered it. We are happy to buy most of the country's motor vehicle fleet off them, and I think Japan holds a reasonable portion of NZ's strategic oil reserve. Maybe we could get a bulk discount
Anyway, here goes:
If all goes well, and the Japanese approve it - look to buy the Orion replacement maritime patrol aircraft from Japan as well, say 4-6 aircraft, either
- Kawasaki C-2 (say a minimum of 3) as a strategic lifter. Can carry the NH90 & LAV-3. Not as great off-piste perhaps as the A400M, but does NZ really need that from a strategic transport? Supplement with C-130J and C-27J / C295 for tactical transport duties.
- A 767-200ER combi conversion (that uses the same engines as the C-2 - the GE CF6-80C2), similar to the Israeli & Columbian MMTT for VIP & cargo transport, could even be a tanker as well. Japan & Italy also have 767-200ER tanker conversions in service (the US is introducing the KC-46 Pegasus, but with P&W engines). Keeps the politicians happy.
I am still a huge fan of something with 4 engines for long-range maritime patrol. This deal would be much more difficult to pull off I would think than the C-2, but Japan seemed keen to sell the P-1 to the UK (even demonstrating it at RIAT), so who knows what is & what isn't possible. I imagine there will be a great deal of pressure on NZG to buy the Boeing P-8, to remain part of the '5 Eyes' ISR club, but perhaps it will just be too expensive. I am worried that we may miss the best (read cheapest) window for P-8 anyway. USN orders are expected to end in 2020, well before the 2025-2030 timeframe that NZG is expecting to replace the Orions in.
- 2nd-hand P-3C Orions (they have something close to 100 in-service & the youngest are only 25 years old), or
- Kawasaki P-1
OT: there have been some interesting questions to parliament recently. Worth keeping an eye on. The Defence White Paper is coming in a few weeks apparently. It had better be spectacular - we are running desperately short on time to replace the major equipment.
Agreed, any P8 purchase would not be to replace our current P3 fleet one for one but more a portion of it (ie high end) with the tier 2 and possibly 3 (manned and unmanned) options taking on more of the mid and low level tasks which for NZ is numerous and otherwise hours/manpower intensive, expensive and overkill for a P3. Currently wether it is identifying a fishing vessel off the east coast, overland surveillance in Waiouru, stalking a RAN frigate on ex, monitoring illegal fishing off Fiji, tracking pirates in the MEAO or searching for a missing plane in the Indian ocean then 5 Sqn utilises P3K2, why? because it is our sole asset dedicated to this role not nesscessarily because it is the best platform for the task.
4 P8 along with 3-4 smaller lesser equipped/legged platforms and a similar number of UAV (still not sure why it needs to be something as large, expensive and equipped as triton moreso a mariner type) would better cover the full gambit NZ would use this capabilty for (not US, Aus, UK etc) covering off the full range from the mundane to the technical, short range to global ops and peacetime to combat better and more effectively than more of a singular type as it will inevitably be overkill or underwhelming dependant on tasking, again leading to the inefficiancies we are currently experiencing.
With the advent and current thinking in regards to sims and task trainers the fleets do not need to be as large as they once were to acheive the same outputs and with common fleets ie B737s to replace the 757s, king air MEPT, naval NH90s or 40 sqn C295s then pilot and tech conversions to type could be shared more creating synergies despite "lesser" numbers on squadron. We also need the current number of P3 more for reliability and serviceabilty concerns as well and I highly doubt we would have more than 4 available at any one time anyway, a factor generally lessened with most new equipment these days hence usually the justification for a drop in overall numbers.
Regardless of what we eventually get I think multirole is definately a deal breaker and cost is added accordingly in terms of aqquisition, operation and through life but a considered compromise nonetheless, and that's why I still think a C235/295 platform offers more than a B350 type in terms of operating parameters, future growth and potential taskings. For example having the ability to self deploy CW limited GSE and maintainers in the same platform at short notice is a gamechanger and a C235 can do what a B350 can (yes at cost however still less than P3) but can the same be said the otherway around? Therefore limited from the start so overall worth the "savings"??? To put in naval terms the P8 would be an ANZAC frigate, C295 a OPV and B350 the IPV, they have their roles but also their limitations and these need to be taken into account, especially if there is only funding for 2 types not 3.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Our P-3s will keep flying until the late 2020s. With the debt junior is piling up and his delays on major defence acquisitions, the amount of money required to fund everything that is needed (new fighters, new frigates, P-3 replacement, Subs) just won't be enough. If interest rates ever get back to historical norms there will be even less. If the polar ice cap disappears, the question will be which one these assets should we buy. We will be lucky if 1-2 programs get funded.
John I thought the Aurora's were exiting around the same time as our P-3's. I had not kept up with the play politics wise in Canada other than the F-18s being withdraw from the ME and the F35 being second guessed.
Overall it is a sticky situation. None of those big ticket items should be left to chance. The 5 year delay is troubling. However it is less than an election term.
Has Canada walked into a late 1990's NZ scenario? A pretty boy version of Ms Clark wanting to reshape defence in his personal ideal? The 'Sunny Ways' Defence Force? All preceded by a prior conservative government that talked the big game but did not actually front up with the entry fee?
Overall it is a sticky situation. None of those big ticket items should be left to chance. The 5 year delay is troubling. However it is less than an election term.
Has Canada walked into a late 1990's NZ scenario? A pretty boy version of Ms Clark wanting to reshape defence in his personal ideal? The 'Sunny Ways' Defence Force? All preceded by a prior conservative government that talked the big game but did not actually front up with the entry fee?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Fourteen of our remaining eighteen Auroras are being given life-extension mods and upgrades so the RCAF will be stuck with these planes until at least 2030. Junior has put off major aquistions during his first mandate which will run until 2020. You are correct about our defence scenario mirroring NZ's. Junior, his Liberal party, and Canadians in general operate in a sunny ways kumbayah bubble. The former Conservative government talked a big game but other than buy some badly needed strategic and tactical airlift did not follow through. Thus we have this looming tidal wave of new military kit getting ready to swamp us all at once.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Interesting read, especially when it mentions one of the reasons was to 'make the Army very mobile' , well that policy hasnt been doing so well with the hercs breaking down since, and retirement looming for half the Squadron in the next five years.
The mind boggles as to why they didnt decide then to purchase Hercules C13OJ along with Australia when they did, would of saved costs too,ditto for RAAF C17. Hopefully the Defence White paper will be released finally this month and might shed some light on the matter of where we go from here.