Royal New Zealand Air Force

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
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.
I would be very careful about making claims visit a viz aircraft costs. The Gripen flyaway cost is in the region of US$60 -70 million and the latest F-35A LRIP flyaway cost is around US$90 - 100 million. So patently the F-35A cost is not 3.5 that of the Gripen. The Gripen offers nowhere near any of the advanced capabilities of the F-35.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
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.
To be fair that's not true. I flew to and from my home in New Guinea on them as a kid and at height they were quick and smooth.
They suffered from evolution into the jet age, Lockheeds timing was terrible.
 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
A later post I made here agrees with yours, the 707 and DC-8 were what the market wanted. Lockheed was late to the dance for sure.
 
Last edited:

KH-12

Member
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.
Given the Global 6000 doesn’t have the luxury of an internal ordinance bay like the P8 and P1 all the weapons have to be carried externally , I can’t help thinking that hanging a whole lot of stuff off that beautiful wing is going to help with range much, maybe in clean configuration it’s performance is good, but there will be a significant penalty
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
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.

Aside from much of the content sounding like the spiel of a Saab rep, I find a number of the assertions either incorrect, or made so far out of context that people who lack context will be mislead. The frequency and degree to which it seems to be happening is honestly making me wonder.

Take for instance the following comments:

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.
AND

The G6000 however, can loiter for 8hours at 1800km or so with a low-level loiter.
The two quoted comments do not match available information by providing a reduce P-8 Poseidon capability, and an inflated Global 6000/Swordfish capability.
Per archived information from the RAAF, the P-8 Poseidon can transit 1,200 n miles (~2,200 km) and then loiter on station in excess of 4 hours at low altitude. Per the Saab datasheet on the Global 6000/Swordfish, that aircraft can transit 1,000 n miles (~1,800 km) and loiter at low altitude for 7.3 hours. While what the actual, exact performance data is not publicly available, shortening the stated P-8 transit distance by ~130 n miles/200 km as well as leaving the loiter time as just 4 hours, when the information states it is over 4 hours, is going to make the P-8 Poseidon performance look worse than it actually is from public data. By the same token, inflating the Global 6000/Swordfish low altitude loiter time from the publicly released 7.3 hours upwards to 8 hours is going to make the Global 6000/Swordfish performance look better than it's public data.

Other commentary which is questionable or out of context is this:

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.
The above quote leaves out some of what the P-8 Poseidon can already do, and more that is in development or testing for deployment from the P-8 Poseidon.

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 above comment is questionable from a number of aspects. The first thing I question is whether someone who is not involved in ASW ops and familiar with current and emerging USN ASW doctrine is really in a position to make accurate statements that the USN ASW doctrine is "retarded by the legacy operating doctrine" since as a rule, ASW and EW efforts and capabilities tend to be closely held secrets. Relating to that, the USN does have multi-static sonobuoys aboard the P-3 and P-8 and AFAIK there is no information available in the public domain regarding either their performance, or the performance of alternate multi-static sonobuoy systems which be used to extrapolate whether smaller/cheaper or larger/more expensive is "better". On a related note, the pneumatic launch tubes used to drop USN sonobuoys are also used to launch things like the Coyote UAS, which can provide additional ISR capability controlled by P-8, while keeping the Poseidon out of 'harms way'. Had the USN gone with a smaller, gravity launch tube for sonobuoys suitable for the smaller sonobuoys mentioned above, then a Poseidon would not be able to launch and control a swarm of Coyote UAS, or similarly sized and capable UAV's. It is also possible that without the pneumatic launch, UAV's could not be deployed due to issues clearing the aircraft.

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).
This has been mentioned previously, and just like before, I and others have a rather different take than that which seems to be getting suggested. For national security reasons the US (and other nations) are very interested in who has access to advanced avionics and sensors. What people would not realize from above quote is that the Seaspray 7500 AESA is not the only electronically scanned array that the US has either tried or succeeded in limiting the exportation of. Some of the Elta systems used in the IAI Phalcon AEW system come to mind when the US exerted pressure to stop Israel from exporting Phalcon AEW's to mainland China. As for "how good" the USCG found it, one should perhaps also keep in mind that aside from aboard USCG HC-130H Hercules aircraft which are tasked with aeronautical SAR and ice surveillance, other US maritime patrol/surveillance aircraft use other radars. What that suggests to me is that the radar system is certainly capable, otherwise it would have already been replaced. However, it also suggests that other radars are either of equal or better capability in various maritime surveillance applications, since the US military has introduced and kept them. Examples would be Raytheon's APY-10 as fitted to the P-8 Poseidon, or the Telephonics APS-143C fitted to USCG HC-144 Ocean Sentry's which first entered service in 2009, about four years after the Seaspray 7500 AESA was fitted to USCG HC-130H Hercules aircraft. Again, while I do believe the Seaspray 7500 AESA is a very capable radar system, there is nothing which IMO would imply the capability is greater or more appropriate for maritime surveillance than alternate radar systems and it seems that either people are reading too much into US attempts to limit exportation, or attempting to get others to read too much into such attempts.

With respect to aircraft pricing, it should be abundantly clear to most members that it is usually quite difficult to determine what the actual cost to purchase and aircraft, acquire the capability, and then sustain/support it is. By doing some significant digging, those interested can sometimes extrapolate a potential price range for an aircraft purchase, but those are just estimates and often very rough ones. One also has to be wary of relying too much upon a manufacturer's public cost projections, and comparing dissimilar costings. A classic false comparison, often made by those with an axe to grind, is using the estimated full rate production cost for one aircraft, and the prototype or LRIP cost of another.

From work which has already appeared earlier in this thread and elsewhere on DT, the purchase or 'flyaway' cost for a Global 6000/Swordfish is likely going to be close to that of a P-8 Poseidon which should mean that the purchase cost should not be a crucial factor. Either system is going to be expensive.
 

Attachments

StereoGeek

New Member
I would be very careful about making claims visit a viz aircraft costs. The Gripen flyaway cost is in the region of US$60 -70 million and the latest F-35A LRIP flyaway cost is around US$90 - 100 million. So patently the F-35A cost is not 3.5 that of the Gripen. The Gripen offers nowhere near any of the advanced capabilities of the F-35.
This argument goes round and round in circles all over the internet, so no need for us to spread it to here too ;) I was simply quoting from the Gripen presentation at the Singapore Airshow.
 

StereoGeek

New Member
Aside from much of the content sounding like the spiel of a Saab rep, I find a number of the assertions either incorrect, or made so far out of context that people who lack context will be mislead. The frequency and degree to which it seems to be happening is honestly making me wonder.

Take for instance the following comments:



AND



The two quoted comments do not match available information by providing a reduce P-8 Poseidon capability, and an inflated Global 6000/Swordfish capability.
Per archived information from the RAAF, the P-8 Poseidon can transit 1,200 n miles (~2,200 km) and then loiter on station in excess of 4 hours at low altitude. Per the Saab datasheet on the Global 6000/Swordfish, that aircraft can transit 1,000 n miles (~1,800 km) and loiter at low altitude for 7.3 hours. While what the actual, exact performance data is not publicly available, shortening the stated P-8 transit distance by ~130 n miles/200 km as well as leaving the loiter time as just 4 hours, when the information states it is over 4 hours, is going to make the P-8 Poseidon performance look worse than it actually is from public data. By the same token, inflating the Global 6000/Swordfish low altitude loiter time from the publicly released 7.3 hours upwards to 8 hours is going to make the Global 6000/Swordfish performance look better than it's public data.

Other commentary which is questionable or out of context is this:



The above quote leaves out some of what the P-8 Poseidon can already do, and more that is in development or testing for deployment from the P-8 Poseidon.



The above comment is questionable from a number of aspects. The first thing I question is whether someone who is not involved in ASW ops and familiar with current and emerging USN ASW doctrine is really in a position to make accurate statements that the USN ASW doctrine is "retarded by the legacy operating doctrine" since as a rule, ASW and EW efforts and capabilities tend to be closely held secrets. Relating to that, the USN does have multi-static sonobuoys aboard the P-3 and P-8 and AFAIK there is no information available in the public domain regarding either their performance, or the performance of alternate multi-static sonobuoy systems which be used to extrapolate whether smaller/cheaper or larger/more expensive is "better". On a related note, the pneumatic launch tubes used to drop USN sonobuoys are also used to launch things like the Coyote UAS, which can provide additional ISR capability controlled by P-8, while keeping the Poseidon out of 'harms way'. Had the USN gone with a smaller, gravity launch tube for sonobuoys suitable for the smaller sonobuoys mentioned above, then a Poseidon would not be able to launch and control a swarm of Coyote UAS, or similarly sized and capable UAV's. It is also possible that without the pneumatic launch, UAV's could not be deployed due to issues clearing the aircraft.



This has been mentioned previously, and just like before, I and others have a rather different take than that which seems to be getting suggested. For national security reasons the US (and other nations) are very interested in who has access to advanced avionics and sensors. What people would not realize from above quote is that the Seaspray 7500 AESA is not the only electronically scanned array that the US has either tried or succeeded in limiting the exportation of. Some of the Elta systems used in the IAI Phalcon AEW system come to mind when the US exerted pressure to stop Israel from exporting Phalcon AEW's to mainland China. As for "how good" the USCG found it, one should perhaps also keep in mind that aside from aboard USCG HC-130H Hercules aircraft which are tasked with aeronautical SAR and ice surveillance, other US maritime patrol/surveillance aircraft use other radars. What that suggests to me is that the radar system is certainly capable, otherwise it would have already been replaced. However, it also suggests that other radars are either of equal or better capability in various maritime surveillance applications, since the US military has introduced and kept them. Examples would be Raytheon's APY-10 as fitted to the P-8 Poseidon, or the Telephonics APS-143C fitted to USCG HC-144 Ocean Sentry's which first entered service in 2009, about four years after the Seaspray 7500 AESA was fitted to USCG HC-130H Hercules aircraft. Again, while I do believe the Seaspray 7500 AESA is a very capable radar system, there is nothing which IMO would imply the capability is greater or more appropriate for maritime surveillance than alternate radar systems and it seems that either people are reading too much into US attempts to limit exportation, or attempting to get others to read too much into such attempts.

With respect to aircraft pricing, it should be abundantly clear to most members that it is usually quite difficult to determine what the actual cost to purchase and aircraft, acquire the capability, and then sustain/support it is. By doing some significant digging, those interested can sometimes extrapolate a potential price range for an aircraft purchase, but those are just estimates and often very rough ones. One also has to be wary of relying too much upon a manufacturer's public cost projections, and comparing dissimilar costings. A classic false comparison, often made by those with an axe to grind, is using the estimated full rate production cost for one aircraft, and the prototype or LRIP cost of another.

From work which has already appeared earlier in this thread and elsewhere on DT, the purchase or 'flyaway' cost for a Global 6000/Swordfish is likely going to be close to that of a P-8 Poseidon which should mean that the purchase cost should not be a crucial factor. Either system is going to be expensive.
I know it totally sounds like I am ‘on the take’ from Saab! I just think our FASC choice is incredibly important, and I am concerned by efforts both internal and external to railroad the P8 through the process. I have faith in the NZDF and the Ministry to make the right choice, as long as they are given the opportunity to do so without external political and economic lobbying pressure. At least we can trust there are no bribes going down, which is more than can be said for most military aquisition wotldside. I know how aggressive the Americans can be to sell their weaponry, it forms a core part of their foreign policy and is a full time job for many of their diplomats. I’ll get to see it in the flesh again when Indo-Defence comes around. The numbers etc I quoted come from the horses mouth, as it were, which I trust more than most of what can be found on the internet, but I understand how we must take them all with a grain of salt. I love the way some of you here are such realist skeptics. That’s always a healthy perspective to have in any conversation.
Do think when the deal is done we will be able to find out what all the other offers and promises from other contenders were? That might be commercially sensitive, but it’s what Ron Mark is trying to get a grip on now with the delay I think.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
This argument goes round and round in circles all over the internet, so no need for us to spread it to here too ;) I was simply quoting from the Gripen presentation at the Singapore Airshow.
I suggest very strongly that you read the following:

Aircraft Prices

Air Power 101 for New Members

A brief history of LO

Combat Aircraft Comparison stats

When I post aircraft costs I always state the cost type; whether it's flyaway or includes the spares, maintenance etc. So two costs for you including the sources:

SAAB Gripen E US$69 million flyaway. http://aviationweek.com/awin/new-gripen-aims-low-cost-high-capability
New Gripen Aims For Low Cost, High Capability

LM F-35A LRIP 10 US$95 million. https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2017/03/22/next-f-35-contract-lrip-11-expected
Next Big F-35 Contract Expected Later This Year

Note that these are indicative prices only because the price that is paid may vary from country to country due to differing procurement systems and contracts.

Taking one OEM's claim about another's prices at face value is not wise, nor good research. It's easy enough to find sources that are reasonably indicative of most aircraft flyway costs.
 

StereoGeek

New Member
I suggest very strongly that you read the following:

Aircraft Prices

Air Power 101 for New Members

A brief history of LO

Combat Aircraft Comparison stats

When I post aircraft costs I always state the cost type; whether it's flyaway or includes the spares, maintenance etc. So two costs for you including the sources:

SAAB Gripen E US$69 million flyaway.
New Gripen Aims For Low Cost, High Capability

LM F-35A LRIP 10 US$95 million.
Next Big F-35 Contract Expected Later This Year

Note that these are indicative prices only because the price that is paid may vary from country to country due to differing procurement systems and contracts.

Taking one OEM's claim about another's prices at face value is not wise, nor good research. It's easy enough to find sources that are reasonably indicative of most aircraft flyway costs.
Point well taken Ngati, especially when you also add in exchange rates, industrial offsets and secret govt to govt exchanges of capital outside the deals that are unknowable. I think my main point is that given our combination of minimal budget, and our populations pervasive disinterest in strategic security, which must unfortunately be followed by govt if we are indeed a democracy, then our ongoing cost vs capability exigence is all the more important than most, which also requires a narrowing of what capability our govt can expect the NZDF to provide in order for it to provide anything useful at all. To that end HADRaS and Maritime Security is our main priority. I get the impression that you guys really know what you are talking about, so I am more than willing to defer to your corrections. However when writing for published and commissioned content, one can only use information collected from the horses mouth at the event itself, and since you can’t publish material before the editor gets to public it on their own terms, the plethora of diverse analysis to be found online must come after the fact. I can only stand behind the information I was given, in the same way that you can stand behind yours. At any rate it’s going to be fascinating to see how it all turns out! We will know in fifty years...
 

Preceptor

Super Moderator
Staff member
However when writing for published and commissioned content, one can only use information collected from the horses mouth at the event itself, and since you can’t publish material before the editor gets to public it on their own terms, the plethora of diverse analysis to be found online must come after the fact. I can only stand behind the information I was given, in the same way that you can stand behind yours.
You might be operating under constraints involving sources if doing commissioned work for a publication, but that doesn't apply to any posts made on DT. This is important because "horse's mouth" sources at an event like an air show, or defense trade show are trying to draw interest in their products, and therefore sales which means anything coming from the de facto sales reps needs to checked for accuracy. This has been a particular problem since some of the "horse's mouth" information is different from information direct from defense companies linked and uploaded by others.

Having an information conflict between what someone working a Saab booth is saying about the Swordfish and the information found in a datasheet on the Swordfish published and available for download from Saab is a problem. Deciding to believe what's said at the booth instead of what's on the Saab datasheet is another, since that sort of behavior looks like either an inability to judge the reliability of sources, or a desire make the product look better than Saab says it is.

Continued reliance on what company reps have said, without also researching information on defense systems, is just going to continue sounding like someone working for whatever company the rep worked for, and that sort of participation is of poor quality and wears on the patience of members and Mods.
-Preceptor
 

StereoGeek

New Member
Sure I can see where you are coming from there. I’m a very sporadic contributir here, and hadn’t realised there was active control of narrative. I had assumed IHS Janes and Shepard Media were considered as reliable sources though. Is that not the case here? I’ll try to stick to linkable reference material only in future... I can see how that would be appropriate here.

Cheers
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Sure I can see where you are coming from there. I’m a very sporadic contributir here, and hadn’t realised there was active control of narrative. I had assumed IHS Janes and Shepard Media were considered as reliable sources though. Is that not the case here? I’ll try to stick to linkable reference material only in future... I can see how that would be appropriate here.

Cheers
The moderators don't control the narrative. However we do have expectations around content because this is a professional defence forum and as such whilst there is robust debate, there is also a requirement to link and / or list sources. We do not accept any fanboy rubbish and we expect that all posters respect the viewpoints of other posters.

Janes and IHS are considered reliable sources, however Wikipedia isn't. Our source and citing requirements are similar to academic requirements for sources and citing.

I would be a very good boy if I were you because you have awoken Preceptor and he is the real grumpy Moderator.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
... Seaspray 7500 AESA is not the only electronically scanned array that the US has either tried or succeeded in limiting the exportation of. .... However, it also suggests that other radars are either of equal or better capability in various maritime surveillance applications, since the US military has introduced and kept them. Examples would be ... or the Telephonics APS-143C fitted to USCG HC-144 Ocean Sentry's which first entered service in 2009, about four years after the Seaspray 7500 AESA was fitted to USCG HC-130H Hercules aircraft. .
Are you really saying that the APS-143C is superior to the Seaspray 7500E? I thought it was a cheaper, lighter radar fitted to smaller and/or lower capability aircraft, e.g. the HC-144, which is 20% of the max T/O weight of the HC-130 - & not AESA.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Are you really saying that the APS-143C is superior to the Seaspray 7500E? I thought it was a cheaper, lighter radar fitted to smaller and/or lower capability aircraft, e.g. the HC-144, which is 20% of the max T/O weight of the HC-130 - & not AESA.
"suggests that other radars are either of equal or better capability"

I think he was only suggesting that there are comparatively similar and indeed better radars out there.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Are you really saying that the APS-143C is superior to the Seaspray 7500E? I thought it was a cheaper, lighter radar fitted to smaller and/or lower capability aircraft, e.g. the HC-144, which is 20% of the max T/O weight of the HC-130 - & not AESA.
Please re-read exactly what I posted. I have quoted the relevant portion below, pay particular attention to the bolded sections:

However, it also suggests that other radars are either of equal or better capability in various maritime surveillance applications, since the US military has introduced and kept them. Examples would be Raytheon's APY-10 as fitted to the P-8 Poseidon, or the Telephonics APS-143C fitted to USCG HC-144 Ocean Sentry's which first entered service in 2009, about four years after the Seaspray 7500 AESA was fitted to USCG HC-130H Hercules aircraft. Again, while I do believe the Seaspray 7500 AESA is a very capable radar system, there is nothing which IMO would imply the capability is greater or more appropriate for maritime surveillance than alternate radar systems and it seems that either people are reading too much into US attempts to limit exportation, or attempting to get others to read too much into such attempts.
Absent more information, I would surmise that the reason or reasons why the HC-144A Ocean Sentry (which are undergoing conversion to HC-144B btw) was fitted was fitted with the Telephonics APS-143C was either due to the physical size, power requirements, cost, a desire to purchase a capable domestic radar, or a combination thereof. The two most likely IMO are cost and desire for a domestic radar. Weight would be an unlikely reason IMO, since without the MSP which holds the two consoles used for C4ISR ops, the HC-144A Ocean Sentry can fit up to 3 pallets with a total cargo weight of ~4,500 kg also the APS-143C has a weight of 84.4 kg vs. 110 kg for the Seaspray 7500 AESA. I have not yet nailed down the full dimensions of the Seaspray 7500, but given that examples of the Seaspray family of radars are mounted on helicopters and medium-ranged MPS aircraft like the ATR-72 MP, then I am not certain whether size would really be an issue.

Once again, IMO the Seaspray 7500 is a good radar for maritime surveillance applications, however I also believe that when listed along with other modern maritime surveillance radars like the APS-143C, the APS-147, the AN/APY-10, various members of the Thales Searchwater radar family, etc. that the Seaspray 7500 is listed amongst equals, as opposed to being the first amongst equals, or listed with "inferior" radars.
 
Last edited:

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
This is a somewhat dated article by a USN aviator comparing his experiences with the P-3 and P-8. I think it is the same piece I posted several years ago but I couldn't find it.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/confessions-of-a-pilot-behind-the-us-navys-airborne-sub-1598415741
Yeah, the article is nearly four years old at this point so things have changed. Implementation of Increment 2 has commenced with Increment 3 to start "soon". The addition of another workstation (total of six now with Increment 2) can permit even more operators focused on a specific task since the workstations are universal. I do wonder which Increment will see the addition of the seventh workstation which the P-8A a space set aside for. Another thing which has changed from the article is that apparently the P-8A Poseidon has an advanced CAE integrated MAD which does not appear to require a tail boom like the MAD used in the P-8I for India, or the MAD's used in P-3 Orions. Having not heard anything else about it, I wonder if this advanced MAD uses tech Australia was developing about a decade ago which the US was interested in. Not having heard anything else about it, I would not be surprised if that was the case. From what little I remember, the MAD capability being developed collected something like 14 points of comparison vs. a single one from traditional MAD's.

One other thought which occurred to me. Someone had previously mentioned not being able to 'swap' systems around in FMS P-8A Poseidon's around. From my POV the fact that they are FMS has nothing to do with it. If someone is changing the kit a P-8A Poseidon is equipped with, then the aircraft would not be a P-8A, but instead it would be a P-8something else, like India's P-8I. As has already been demonstrated with the P-8I there is an option for foreign countries to have their own variants developed instead of using the P-8A like the USN, the RAAF, and potentially other trusted nations. As a practical matter, I would expect that any country trusted by the US to have access to the P-8A would likely prefer to go that route instead of having their own version of Poseidon, since that would enable them to take advantage of the incremental improvements the USN is having developed.

IIRC India had to go on it's own path since they were not going to be given access to all the tech of the P-8A.
 

Milne Bay

Active Member
Interestingly Australia's new maritime surveillance aircraft, the P-8A Poseidon, has achieved Initial Operating Capability (IOC) five months ahead of the original schedule.
Read more at Poseidon delivery five months ahead of schedule - Australian Defence Magazine

I wonder when the Orions will be fully withdrawn - thinking out loud here as this properly belongs on the RAAF thread.
Still, the ease with which Australia's P-8A's have been integrated won't be missed by NZ and is a plus for its possible selection
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Interestingly Australia's new maritime surveillance aircraft, the P-8A Poseidon, has achieved Initial Operating Capability (IOC) five months ahead of the original schedule.
Read more at Poseidon delivery five months ahead of schedule - Australian Defence Magazine

I wonder when the Orions will be fully withdrawn - thinking out loud here as this properly belongs on the RAAF thread.
Still, the ease with which Australia's P-8A's have been integrated won't be missed by NZ and is a plus for its possible selection
I am looking forward to the RAAF's P-8A's doing A2A with the KC-30's. This will mean the RAAF will potentially be able to operate 20 hour missions like has been demo'ed at JAX/PAX if circumstances require it. Something the RNZAF P-8A's will be able to utilise when working with partner nations.

The 7th station in later increments means that one P-8A can perform a range of capabilities that smaller platforms require multiple platforms to be effective.

The ability to grow further capabilities into the EW/Int realm, the endurance advantage from A2A, the capability to be at the heart of the distributed force dome, are why guys like GF and other DefPro's who have been involved in the selection of the P-8A at the OZ government level regard it as a generation ahead by quite some margin in terms of what it brings to maritime domain awareness.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I am looking forward to the RAAF's P-8A's doing A2A with the KC-30's. This will mean the RAAF will potentially be able to operate 20 hour missions like has been demo'ed at JAX/PAX if circumstances require it. Something the RNZAF P-8A's will be able to utilise when working with partner nations.

The 7th station in later increments means that one P-8A can perform a range of capabilities that smaller platforms require multiple platforms to be effective.

The ability to grow further capabilities into the EW/Int realm, the endurance advantage from A2A, the capability to be at the heart of the distributed force dome, are why guys like GF and other DefPro's who have been involved in the selection of the P-8A at the OZ government level regard it as a generation ahead by quite some margin in terms of what it brings to maritime domain awareness.
Imagine five of the workstations each controlling a dedicated network of multi-static sonobuoys, the sixth workstation controlling the integrated MAD, and the seventh and final workstation controlling a Coyote UAS 20-strong swarm, each fitted with their own MAD. Perhaps I am a little strange, but I cannot help getting the giggles when I picture the expression on a submarine captain's face when confronted by a potential P-8 Poseidon with that kind of mission loadout...
 
Top