Hey All.
Saab has offered only the G6000 to the NZDF, so all swordfish discussion here should only be for that platform.
Saab categorically states that the Swordfish in the configuration offered to the NZDF is 2/3 the per unit acquisition cost, and less than half the operating cost per hour, using the same rubric that Boeing has used in their operating costs projected to the NZDF. Actual figures are obviously commercially sensitive in an active process like this. So yes, the difference is substantial, especially spread over the life of the aircraft. They said that if the FASC budget remains the same, they will be able to supply 7 full-system configured Swordfish aircraft for the same price as 4 P8’s.
Yes the G6000 is most certainly capable of generating enough power to have confidence in future proofing. The G6000 was designed from the outset to be a Special Mission platform, hence it was designed with a high power generation ability. This is why the USAF and RAF chose it as the R1 Sentinel and E-11 ELINT platform.
The combination of this organic power generation as standard and Saab’s world-leading SWaP efficiency technology (Size, Power and Weight) is where the future proofing in power needs comes from. This is one of the main reasons Saab chose the G6000 as the platform after evaluating all available aircraft (aside from its full-speed and altitude spectrum efficiency wing design.) This is what they told me in the written brief they gave me via email when I asked them about it: “The Global 6000 aircraft comes with a high degree of redundancy as standard, with four variable frequency generators, an auxiliary power unit and a RAM air turbine generator. In the fully optioned configuration of the soon to be in-service Global-Eye, it will use only 70% of power the aircraft can generate as standard without further modification.”
That ‘fully-optioned’ configuration integrates the ERIEYE-ER M-AESA, The Seaspray 7500E AESA (*the multi-mode interleaving surface and air search radar in-service with the USCG that proved so good the US tried to block its export, forcing Leonardo, it’s manufacturer, to change a minor supplier. I was told that by an ex-Nimrod and Merlin pilot now working for Leonardo), FLIR Systems STAR SAFFIRE 380HD E0/IR, SIRIUS-NG ESM/ELINT/COMINT system, SATCOM, Link 11/16/22 Datalink, IDAS-NG Self Protection System w/ DIRCM, and an EW system system derived from the AREXIS Airborne Electronic Attack system designed for the Gripen NG. Given the Swordfish system lacks the ERIEYE-ER, that would mean even more power available. The only additions to the Swordfish system are the new CAE MAD Boom (which is 1/10th the weight and power requirements of the legacy P-3 systems) and General Dynamics Mission Systems Canada Multi-Status Acoustics System.
The Swordfish is most certainly not sold as a ‘one-off’ configuration of sensors and systems. That is describing the P8… The man-machine interface and data fusion system, with workstations derived from the Global Eye system, can integrate through its open-architecture whatever configuration the NZDF wants. But obviously, the currently offered system is already ‘pre-integrated’ and lower risk. Apparently, the RNZAF are big fans of their Wescam MX-20 EO/IR Turrets, and if needed could swap out the FLIR systems turret for an MX-20 or MX-25 (which still uses the MX-20 mount), but Saab is certain the Star-Safire is the superior system so included it in the proposal to the NZDF.
The addition of a drop-hatch specifically for the NZDF requirements is a good example of tailoring to local needs. It can still carry the SKAD pods of course, and well as ‘precision drop’ smaller rescue packages through the Sonubouy launchers. This is a big bonus when responding to a disaster situation that has a large number of persons under threat at once. ie: dropping dozens of 2/4 person life rafts instead of just a few 10-person life rafts. Think sinking ship…
The man-machine interface is also highly automated (in a similar way to the P-1’s system), with ergonomics specifically designed to lower crew workload and requirements. This lowering of crew requirements for deployment (including less support on the ground than the P-8) is a big deal to the NZDF with its obvious recruitment and retention issues and our demographic economy of scale and talent pool, not to mention the mere cost of deployment.
Lots of these system details got left out of the article I linked to when it was cut from 4000 words or so down to the 2000 words to fit into the magazine I am afraid…
I must apologise for my knowledge gap here, but I still fail to see why only a P8 is capable of integrating with the RAAF and USN P8 operations, including their BAMS setup, when other platforms such as RCAF CP-140’s have already done so. The entire point of the new communications standards is operability and the ability to exchange encrypted voice/data/targeting information isn’t it? I know the new smaller GDMSC Multi-Static Acoustic system can utilise sonobuoys that are cross-compatible with the existing systems used on the P8, except the new sonobuoys are smaller and cheaper yet have greater range and a wider dynamic range to noise-floor, meaning less of them need to be dropped to cover the same area. The information from these new bouys is distributable across link 16/22 datalinks and can be used by any system with the appropriate MSA equipment including aircraft, helicopters, or ships.
We have entered into wide-ranging maritime security pacts recently that will see us operating alongside all ASEAN nations, as well as the CMF in the middle east, and new UN HADR Rapid Reaction Packages being worked on at the moment that will see us directly integrating into operations that are increasingly not US-centric in nature. That doesn't mean our relationship with the US is reduced though. Cooperation is not a 'pie'; when you give someone a greater amount of cooperation you don't have to take any cooperation away from someone else... The ASEAN and Asia-Pacific dynamic is going to change rapidy in the next decade. And, as I said earlier, given the huge amount of influence that domestic industry has upon US foreign policy (as with other nations obviously), the likelihood of our interests diverging from theirs is going grow as economic and ecological pressures in the Pacific intensify, pitting purely commercial interests in resources against the publics desire to protect them. And it is the public desire that ideally drives our foreign policy in an actual democracy is it not? The unfortunate disinterest and ignorance within that public narrative are where the 'good' fight lies...
EDIT: Just one final thing... When performing Wide Area Surveillance, which is what the SeaSpray 7500E excels at, the G6000's ability to actually efficiently cruise at 50,000 ft, vs's the P8's 42,000ft, make the maximum range to horizon much further, given that the Earth's horizon is the limiting factor in target detection range. The SeaSpray 7000E can from this altitude detect small ships are 350nma and large ships at 400nm+. All the usual target type variable come in to play... That is what the ERIEYE-ER upgrade to the previous ERIEYE system was designed for, to make full use of that increase in operating altitude.
I agree with the potency of the P1. I would have loved to have included it in the comparison, but the Kawasaki people were uninterested in confirming any details on the platform or systems in Singapore, so I would have had to rely on ‘whatever was available on the internet’, which I steadfastly refused to do with that article. All the info I describe above, and in the article itself, for both platforms, came from the OEM’s themselves in person at their stands/chalets or emails after the fact, and current/ex MPA/ASW aircrews who were at the airshow in various capacities, including current P8 crews. The IAI stand also told me they are not involved with FASC at this stage, which was all I could glean from the short time they gave me, so I never went back to them. The only ones who said they specifically had an interest in FASC were Leonardo, Airbus, Boeing, Kawasaki, Embraer, Saab and Safran (Maybe with their ‘Patroller’ UAV and EuroFlir 410 but wouldn’t elaborate...)and Piaggio (and their P1.HH via Selex and Leonardo) . If you remember the grief the Greens gave the ministry when they found out the new P3K2 radar was Israeli (Elta EL/M 2022A[V]3), the chances of an Israeli system are low. As much as they are not in cabinet, they are still essential for Labour to keep its coalition together, so still have influence. 
