Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
So you are saying that the P-3 isn't a good platform because it is a converted airliner?
I believe that MFAT needs to change from being a trade only cabal to being a proper Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Trade should be a subset of foreign policy, not the single issue focus that MFAT has had since 1991. TBH there is no trade without security, ESPECIALLY FOR A MARITIME NATION. The ever present sea blindness of the pollies and the bureaucrats, will be the death knell of the NZ economy. In the Pacific and Asia when the brown smelly stuff hits the quickly rotating object, our lack of maritime forces and strike force, both surface and air, is our Achilles heal and will be if the current Kiwi govt policy status quo remains.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Fair to say the P-3 has been a great MPA but the Electra was more or less a dog as an airliner based on the application ratio.
StereoGeek
New Member
MFAT is trying to do just that Ngati, but you hit the nail on the head. Here in NZ we have ‘silo’ based governance, where each ministry reports only to its minister, and is responsible only for its own results. The government selects what the measurements of success are and there is zero ‘horizontal’ integration with other ministries. The Minitry of Defence is one of the few that has substantial cross-department integration, as they very cleverly engaged in their ‘whole of government’ approach to keep themselves relevant. The ‘measurement of success’ had been set by the National party as ‘Trade trumps all’ as they applied their neo-liberal doctrine of championing free-market success over the protection of social capital. Labour had big trade priorities too, yet understood how those, at that point new, neo-liberal changes required a solid safety net to work. Once National removed Social Capital from their measurement of success, we ended up with ministries that were literally working against each other, even different departments of the same ministry working against each other, I.e; MFAT Trade policy undermining MFAT Aid and development results on the ground, Cuts to education increasing demand for justice and welfare services etc etc. There is no holicstic integrated governance or here in NZ, which is the fault of our own population, because if we were smart enough to demand it, and made it an election issue, we would have it, along with long-form policy that was allowed to show its results further down the line than the next bloody election cycle. If the results of the Defense force were measured by all ministries, via holistic integration, then Maritime Security would be priority for all of them! If we lose access and control of our vital sea lanes, our economy would collapse, and the effects would be inescapably felt by all departments...
So that is your view on a crew ‘talking down’ an entire platform, eh? That one tactical aspect of a particular operational platform differs from another, theorerical one?
Fair enough. Glad we got that sorted...
Did they talk at all about any of their platform’s advantages at all? Mission systems / payload / range etc?
StereoGeek
New Member
Yes they did, but only in terms of capability increase and generational evolution compared to the P3, not to other modern platforms. The only negative performance related apsect they talked about with the P8 was, as I mentioned in the article, its lack of efficiency over the whole altitide and speed spectrum. The P8 can fly 2000km or so and then loiter for 8 hours. But it can only do that at high altitude, as soon as it's loiter period is at low altitude, it can loiter for only 4hours. This is also the numbers the RAAF has stated they have discovered to be the case for an ASW mission. The G6000 however, can loiter for 8hours at 1800km or so with a low-level loiter. At high altitude only the Swordfish is estimated to be able to loiter for 11 hours (that figure comes from the Global Eye figures). This is specifically what are talking about when they mention the inherent fact that it is a 737. The G6000's entirely modern wing design allows not just a higher cruise altitude (50,000ft vs the P8's 42,000ft), but also a much wider spectrum of efficiency across the speeds and altitude MPA missions demand, especially if the aircraft is going to have to do both MPA and overland/traditional ISR. Some of this capability comes from the G6000's well-designed centre of gravity, which means it can maintain natural level flight without drag-inducing trim. This was a big reason Saab chose the G6000 in the first place. The P1, apparently, can loiter for 11 hours at a low level, but Kawasaki could not say at what operating distance from the base that number is. They also would not elaborate on the P1's high altitude efficiency. ASW Systems-wise, the P8 is also retarded by the legacy operating doctrine of the US Navy, which they are carrying forward with the P8, which uses larger 'pressure-launch' sonobuoy tubes, as opposed to the more modern and smaller 'gravity-launch' tubes, preventing the adoption of the latest multi-static acoustic systems which use smaller and cheaper buoys. The Seaspray 7500 AESA is also world-class (US Coastguard, who use it on their C-130's, found it so good that the US then tried to block Leonardo from exporting it, forcing Leonardo to change a minor supplier to avoid US restrictions). The South Koreans have investigated a deal to integrate the Seaspray 7500E into whatever platform they choose for their MPA, which is working against the P8 in that competition because you are not allowed to custom-swap systems in P8's bought via FMS. FYI there is nothing 'theoretical' about the G6000 as an ISR platform. Look at the Global Eye, the E-11, and the R1 Sentinal. Don't get me wrong, the RAAF and USN crews love their aircraft, but they have not been fooled into any kind of Dunning-Kruger-like superiority complex about it.
Last edited:
It’s a different world today ngati. the Electra as a turbo prop could do low and slow, perfect for an MPA, the 737 can’t operate how we operate our P3’s, the P1 can.
I'm concerned about how the USN use the P-8A because when compared to the RAAF, they and the USAF are well behind the eight ball. We should be closely watching what the RAAF are doing with the E-7A Wedgetail, especially the software side of things. This methodology will also be used on their P-8s and that'll take the Aussie P-8s to the cutting edge.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
That is disputable. As late as 2002 there were ~40 still in commercial service, out of a total fleet size of 170 built between 1957 and 1961. This was also right around the time that airliners with jet as opposed to prop propulsion were being developed. Between the advantages which were available from using jet engines, and some early accidents involving wing failure due to a design defect, the Lockheed Electra L-188 was not as successful as it could otherwise have been.
I found a link that I was looking for... this makes for very interesting reading!
The P-8A Poseidon Adventure: Flying and Fighting the Poseidon | Defense Media Network
Here's the most interesting paragraph in the context of the current discussion...“The employment will be very similar [to the P-3],” Buck counters. “A myth that I’d like to bust is that the P-8 is not able to fly low. This initial lot of aircraft with the Mk.54 torpedo system will fly a very similar profile to the P-3. They’ll go down low. We fly the P-8 in a very similar flight regime to the P-3, and we will employ the Mk.54 from low altitude.”
As regards to the P8's heritage, AFAIK the P8 combines a 'fuse & wing' combo not found on commercial models and this is the reason for this paragraph in the same article: “It’s quite a bit more comfortable,” Boron says. “With the [more] flexible wings, the crew isn’t getting bounced around as much as in the P-3. It flies very smoothly down low.”
The operating methodology for the P-8 is different to that of how the P-3s, Atlantics etc., are / were operated. It's a new level of capability. Second Line of Defense have run a good series upon the P-8, especially how Australia will utilise them.
The Software-Upgradeable Combat Aircraft: The Case of the P-8 - Second Line of Defense
Indeed.
This relates to what GF has said time and time again about the fallacy of platform centric analysis x versus y versus z.
It is not simply about the platform characteristics but about what is in the platform and how what and where what is in the platform is force distributed.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I don't think the Electra could have ever been successful even if the wing issue hadn't occurred. The Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 arrivals were just too superior and exactly what airlines wanted in 1960. Lockheed was lucky Electra transitioned into the P-3. Their airliner business success ended with the Constellation. The L1011 didn't really fare all that well against the DC-10. Hercules is still a winner though!
That’s a nice sales pitch, but the ‘rubber hitting the road’ is always different to the sales pitch.
Time will tell how many operators agree. One thing that does interest me is range / loiter time. Because these are military aircraft not passenger aircraft and they are required to not just fly certain distances at certain speeds / efficiencies, but also to deliver military effect at those ranges.
Now there is no doubt the G6000 and the B-737-800 ERX are substantially different classes of aircraft. One has a gross weight of 92,000lbs and the other 174,000lbs... One in un-modified state has a crew of 4 and room for 13 pax depending on configuration and the other multiple crew and up to 175 passengers depending again upon configuration...
So given the obvious differences in the base platform, what is of interest to me is not precisely how far they fly or at what altitude, but what military effect these aircraft deliver at those ranges. I cannot wait to read the payload differences alone between these two, let alone sensor, power generation, mission systems and so forth.
And again with SAAB if what you are saying are their words, the touting of their aerodynamic features is sounding very similar to what I’ve heard them say about their Gripen.
A very nice little fighter I agree, but it isn’t a world beater by any stretch.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
While many nations other than the existing P-8 users would benefit from acquiring P-8s, the political will is lacking to committ the extra dollars so a Swordfish type alternative MPA is of interest. Whether the actual cost/ performance ratio makes sense is debatable. How many G6000 or A319 or A320 based MPAs could be sold and how long will it take to get to market? In Canada's case, 10-12 years would be no problem and even longer would be acceptable to pollies as long as the platform was a Bombardier aircraft. Other potential operators likely need something sooner.
StereoGeek
New Member
It certainly is a world beater when you can buy 35 of them for the price of 10 F35's and operate them for 1/6 the cost... ie: highly available capability you can afford to have in the air when you need it, or capability you can only have in short bursts of time and place that is too expensive to do at will. Especially since the advent of data-linked passive radars is expected to render shaped stealth irrelevant by 2030. That is not a conversation for here though! We need to get out of the habit of comparing our defence context to that of superpowers. The Capability vs Cost coefficient must be the exigence behind the NZDF's acquisition rubric. Would you prefer your local fire department to have enough good fire engines to get to all the fires or just a few very good fire engines to get to a few of the fires? FYI sensors, power generation and mission systems are all outlined in the article.
t68
Well-Known Member
I certainty agree on your points on cost v capability but that is also true on any added effect the aircraft is capable of, for instance is the Swordfish capable of acting a node for long rang Strategic Intelligence gathering tasks overland is it capable of acting independently as an airborne command and control. Does the added level of complexities and capabilities bring it up to future requirements post future force 2035 is it better to spend more coin now than having an aircraft that can only reach a certain point of capability in the future , cost v capability not only has to look at the here and now but over a 40 year in service date of upgrade path.
I can see both side of the coin
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
@t68. Your points are right on and are exactly what pollies/defence pros have to consider, especially Canada and NZ, countries that will have to live with their aquistion choices for 40 years (or more). If you are willing to upgrade within 25 years, I guess one can go with "probably capable enough" solutions.
According to Bombardier the G6000 can take off at 45000 kg (99000 lb) with up to 17 passengers - & if you gave each passenger the space that they have in a 737 with 175 passengers, that number would be much higher. They don't do a G6000 with cattle class seating.
Yes, the B737 is a much bigger aircraft, but there's no need to exaggerate.