Jack Wyatt
Member
10 Squadron will end ops with the AP3C end of 2018 according to Aust Aviation.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
There was no exaggeration in my previous post, the 92,000lbs was a listed MTOW for the G6000, but clearly there are different MTOW’s for different models, hardly an exaggeration. Plus I’ve checked my maths and I’m pretty confident the mentioned 4 + 13 configuration is somewhat close to the 17 passengers mentioned by Bombadier...
Thank you Jack.
Since we only have six P-8A's at the present moment, I would guess that the AP3C crews will then be into training for the remaining six Poseidons
I wonder how many Orions are currently available anyway
MB
Jack Wyatt
Member
Six AP3Cs will be in service when the type retires.
Final operating capability for the P8A is when twelve aircraft are received and 12 crews are trained.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Given the high cost of acquisition of air frames as well as the training required for crews would an Australian example possibly work for dedicated SAR coverage for New Zealand to alleviate this role from defence force as the primary provider?
Cobham begins operations with first Challenger SAR jet as part of AMSA contract | Australian Aviation
Could also be included in the contract to provide fisheries overwatch if desired.
Since these are non military roles the cost could come from other government budgets allowing the NZDF to focus its limited dollars where they are needed the most.
Thoughts?
Cobham begins operations with first Challenger SAR jet as part of AMSA contract | Australian Aviation
Could also be included in the contract to provide fisheries overwatch if desired.
Since these are non military roles the cost could come from other government budgets allowing the NZDF to focus its limited dollars where they are needed the most.
Thoughts?
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Interesting comments on another RNZAF discussion thread about a B350 headed for Ohakea from Australia.
Any comments or speculation?
Any comments or speculation?
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
In the photo you can see what looks like part of a Kiwi roundel.
Far North Queensland Skies: Beechcraft Kingair 350 VH-ZPE departs
Far North Queensland Skies: Beechcraft Kingair 350 VH-ZPE departs
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Cobham has engaged in providing contract civilian maritime patrolling aviation for Australia successfully, Surveillance Australia comes to mind. It is possible that Cobham could do the same or something similar for NZ. However, there are some inherent 'dangers' if you will, should the NZ gov't decide to follow such a route.
From what has/is being done in & for Australia by Cobham, the surveillance and maritime domain awareness is decidedly 'civilian' in nature. This can work well in terms of keeping track of shipping, fishing vessels, etc. This is appropriate for EEZ patrols, aeronautical SAR, illegal immigration/human trafficking, and/or smuggling. It is not something geared towards detecting periscopes and/or submarines, or tracking subs, or even having any options to provide a military or naval response should one of the detected contacts prove hostile. Also, if the capabilities are similar to what Cobham was providing for Surveillance Australia, then aircraft like MPS-configured Q400's would be utilized. That has proven to work and be fairly cost-effective, but those are essentially 2nd tier, medium-ranged maritime patrol aircraft which would be hard-pressed to provide any sort of response or on-station time to more distant areas of Kiwi interest or responsibility. As a side note, while such assets did (do?) have datalinks, like the similar USCG aviation assets, the information exchanged over it is not the same or really compatible AFAIK with military datalinks like Link 11, Link 16, etc. By way of example, USCG aviation datalinks were recently cleared to pass 'Secret' level information. This would be well short of the clearance level required to pass information gathered via the APS-149 radar or it's derivative the APS-154 radar, since the APS-149 has been a 'black' project which for years was unacknowledged.
The other, and related issue (and what I consider a 'danger') is that if a Kiwi gov't contracts out such a surveillance function, which is already similar to what the RNZAF had been providing for a number of years (unarmed surface maritime domain awareness, with minimal ASW capability) then those members of the NZ body politic wearing rose-tinted or similar glasses might see no need for NZ to have any advanced and/or armed maritime surveillance aviation.
Unfortunately, I could easily see how some of the more short-sighted, penny-pinching, and/or deluded utopian idealists might start crowing about how 'they' found a way to meet NZ patrolling needs for a fraction of the expected costs, while providing 80% of the targeted need. A very large problem would be that the final 20% or whatever amount it was claimed or determined to actually be, would include all the capabilities needed if/when hostilities are threatened or have already broken out.
If the NZ gov't and NZDF work out a comprehensive FASC plan, then the involvement of a civilian/commercial entity like Cobham might have a place, but I would much rather have the high end and pointy bits of such a capability taken care of first.
Presumably this will be the first of the "new" navigation trainers. I assume it is an ex-RAAF B350. Navigation training used to be conducted in Australia (at RAAF East Sale in Victoria - link), but apparently is coming back to NZ in future (to save money?). Not seeing any surface search belly radar, so a coastal maritime surveillance role seems unlikely. Looks awful in dark sea gray though. Will these aircraft be joining 42 Sqn? As replacements or additional to the leased B200s?
It's kind of like having the old DH Devons or Airspeed Oxfords (or perhaps, more properly, the Avro Ansons) back again.
Last edited:
Jack Wyatt
Member
Besides high cost of acquisition, training and maintenance, is the overarching issue that the P8A is an ASW and AsuW aircraft?
Not really. Fundamentally, besides the high costs (and therefore critically, reduced quantity), the issue is the balance between military and civil missions. The P-8 is not really a great airframe for finding lost yachties and fishermen in the vast South Pacific (where you may need to fly low frequently). The USN P-8s didn't even have an air-droppable liferaft package fitted iirc. The question that needs to be asked is: is the primary mission of the aircraft as a coalition asset that can seamlessly slot into out-of-area missions (such as the P-3K2s have recently been doing in the Arabian Gulf), or is the primary mission patrolling the South Pacific for said lost yachties/fishermen and illegal fishing vessels? My money is on the latter. The South Pacific is hardly an ELINT hot-bed either. To my mind the P-8 gets the balance quite wrong for NZ's roles. The P-1 on the other hand, would excel at the SAR stuff, while still being fighty / sneaky enough to do the out-of-area jobs well enough (in the Gulf we were looking for Somali pirates, not Soviet battlefleets)
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I have several issues with the above, some due to a difference in opinion, others due more to a different appreciation for certain capabilities from a SAR perspective.
The first has to do with the balance between civil and naval/military missions. Whilst I absolutely agree that a fairly significant segment of the NZ population and gov't/political body sees the civil missions as of the greatest importance, that directly relates to why a number of DT posters have been banging on about for years, this "sea-blindness" that is so surprisingly common for Kiwis to have, given that NZ is a remote island nation that is active in international trade. NZ has SLOC's between it, and every international trading partner NZ has with ports. As has been demonstrated, conditions along those SLOC's can and will impact NZ. IIRC when piracy off the coast of Somalia had gotten particularly bad, it caused the average commercial shipping insurance costs passing through that region to rise ~USD$100k per voyage. Depending on what (if any) measures a shipping company took to decrease the threat/risk, there could have been additional costs due to increased fuel consumption due to route/speed, the cost of an embarked security team, etc. One must also remember that this was just caused by pirates armed with small arms. Imagine the potential havoc and resulting increased costs on international trade and trade to NZ that a rogue sub or mine-laying vessel could cause, operating in one of the SLOC chokepoints, or even worse, if hostilities were to break out and a nation's subs and naval vessels to do close a SLOC.
If the NZDF is not properly kitted out, then if (when) such a scenario arises, the NZ gov't of the day will have no way of providing or contributing a response to such a sequence of events. NZ assets might lack the persistence required to cover areas desired, either as a direct response to the threat to the SLOC, or as a replacement to cover a friendly/allied area as they shift assets to respond to the SLOC threat. It is also possible that NZ assets could be below a certain level of capability deemed relevant or useful, which could easily be the case if the sensor range or resolution is too low, or if the datalinks and comms freq/bandwidths are not what is required.
Broadly speaking, NZ can opt for either 1st tier, 2nd tier, or 3rd tier maritime patrol aircraft, or a mix of the above. I freely admit that I do not know for sure, but I strongly suspect that both the cost and capabilities for the 1st tier options are going to be more or less comparable, with the P-8 IMO likely having the greater current and future capabilities overall. The Kawaskai P-1 is another option which I consider comparable to the P-8. At present, I would not really consider a Saab Global 6000/Swordfish due to some of the recent articles and claims which have been made about it, given that a number of them have been factually inaccurate or exaggerated. Further, some of the claims which cannot be proven either right or wrong (due to a lack of data) are logically flawed, in much the same way that early claims about the Gripen NG were when it first started getting developed. One cannot get bleeding-edge capability without the costs and risks associated with developing bleeding-edge tech, and using MOTS tech and the associated greater likelihood of reduced developmental and integration costs will not provide bleeding-edge capability.
If costs and civil missions are major driving factors, then just getting 2nd tier capabilities might be sufficient to meet some of the civil and naval/military needs of NZ. IMO however, this reduction in both raw and relative capability for the NZDF will lead to NZ being excluded when events and decisions occur that are of interest to or impact NZ.
With respect to the importance of low altitude operations... that is assuming a few things which seem to be incorrect. One of the first is that apparently one of the intentions of the P-8 Poseidon design was to equal or exceed the aircraft performance of the P-3 Orion in terms of loiter at range/altitude. From a cached RAAF document, the P-8 Poseidon can travel 1,200 n miles, then loiter at low altitude for 4+ hours, which is the same distance and low altitude loiter time for the P-3 Orion. One of the primary differences between the two is that the Poseidon can cover the 1,200 n miles to get on station much faster than an Orion could, resulting in fewer aircraft overall being required to provide a persistent presence at a distant station, as less aircraft and time are tied up in transit. It also makes assumptions about the capabilities of new sensors operating at higher altitudes vs. older sensors at lower altitudes. The higher the altitude, the broader the radar and visual horizons and if working with sensors of comparable sensitivity at low and high altitudes, a the higher altitude flight will be able to search a larger volume in a given period of time. The potential to add in the ability to deploy and control a drone swarm which can provide a linked low altitude search capability would just add to the existing P-8 sensor capability. That might not be of interest for civil aeronautical SAR missions depending on how important civil authorities felt the search was and if the cost was justified, but could certainly be important for military/naval operations.
Last edited:
Who says that the P-8A can't fly low. It does and has been without any trouble. In fact some P-3 crew have said that it is a far more comfortable ride at low level than the P-3. Making these claims about perceived lack of low flight ability is just plain bull manure and also people who claim that it's no good at doing what the P-3 can are spouting more bull manure. The point is that the P-8 isn't designed to just do what a P-3 can and nor will it be operated just like the P-3 has been. It has capabilities far in advance of the P-3 and sub chasing is just one part of its mission. Also an air deployable SAR kit has been developed for it with the RAAF taking the lead in that. People should read up on things like this before spouting rubbish.
As a general rule the level of comfort at low level is related to the wing loading. The higher the wing loading, the smoother the ride and of coarse the lower the wing loading, the bumper the ride. this would give the P 8 an advantage over most of its contemporaries in regard to low level ride due to its higher wing loading, at the expense of a significantly increased runway requirement. The other consideration to keep in mind is that aircraft designed for high altitude, but used in a low altitude mode can suffer from fatigue problems far sooner than aircraft designed for low altitude flight, unless additional strengthening is applied.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Has additional wing strengthening been applied to the 737 based P-8? Given the likelyhood most operations will occur at high altitudes due to the P-8's enhanced sensor abilities to do so, is/was it really necessary to improve wing loading?
My understanding is that the P8 has a stronger wing than a generic 737.
One other thing that needs to be considered when looking across platforms is system integration and capabilities.
Without going into specifics even with something as generic as Link16 there are significantly different capabilities across different platforms (including those that many people would think would be identical/very similar level of integration).
I.e having L16 does not mean that X platform can be as engaged/useful as Y platform. The devil is in the detail and this detailed level of integration (or lack of) carries across in every aspect from planning, execution and dissemination of information.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Good points which is why a future Canadian MPA procurement might sort of benefit from the 2030 timeframe as some more of the proposed alternatives ( Swordfish or whatever other Euro solution emerges) might actually be real in the 2025-2030 interval. The downstroke is no P-8 production line if these "alternatives" don't hatch!
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Canada might be able to kick the can down the road until 2030 to get another MPA, but I have my doubts about how capable such a platform would be.
AFAIK, the US operates the greatest number of maritime patrol and surveillance aircraft in the world. It is also in the process of replacing it's fleet of P-3 Orions, which had set the standard for MPA for decades, with the P-8 Poseidon, which looks like it will be the MPA design with the largest user base in the world. The US also currently has an actively running incremental improvement programme running which is backfitting additional capabilities to existing P-8 Poseidon's and I suspect fitting those improvements to new production.
What the above strongly suggests, is that in addition to the P-8 Poseidon currently being a top/1st tier MPA currently, the aircraft's capabilities have been growing since it first entered service and will continue to do so.
If Canada (or any other nation for that matter) selects a different MPA or MPS platform, there is going to be a smaller user base to share the development and integration costs to get it into service, as well as sharing any future developmental and upgrade costs. Another area of potential concern would be what the sensor options would be and their capabilities. As part of the P-8 progamme, the APS-137(V) was further developed into the AN/APY-10. Unless future maritime patrol or surveillance aircraft programmes are also willing to fund the development of new sensors, then any mission systems fitout is going to be basically limited to MOTS options.
The Kawasaki P-1 is an interesting case due to Japan's strategic needs. I would expect initial performance to be comparable to that of the P-8 Poseidon, but what sharing there might be for future upgrades is much less clear. The design is likely to be the 2nd largest 1st tier MPA in use but given Japan's lack of history in exporting military equipment, it is hard to say whether or not exported aircraft (if any) would be able to benefit from any programme Japan might run to keep the P-1 capabilities current.
As for future options from Europe... Aside from the Saab Global 6000/Swordfish (which remains a paper concept at present with no orders or examples flying or in production AFAIK) I do not see much opportunity for Europe to produce a 1st tier MPA, as most of the current MPA operators seem to use 2nd tier MPA, several of which are in the process of getting new units. Between that, the number of existing 2nd tier European MPA offerings, and the comparatively small order pool, I do not see a manufacturer being interested in spending the resources to develop a 1st tier MPA.
It is reported that the first RNZAF King Air B350i has been delivered to Ohakea. This is the replacement for the current B200 King Airs. At present it is unknown how many and in what configuration, have been leased.
MRC Aviation: RNZAF takes delivery of first Beech King Air 350i
MRC Aviation: RNZAF takes delivery of first Beech King Air 350i
Hmm I'm liking the grey look...more 'business like'! Looking at what that article states & a quick search of the Aussie civil register suggests VH-ZPE, VH-ZPF, VH-ZPG, VH-ZPJ so potentially 4 (VH-ZPH & VH-ZPI aren't Beechcraft nor are anything above VH-ZPJ). Would've hoped the 42 sqn fleet would expand with the ACTC role coming back to NZ shores, but as you state Ngati it's possible they could supplement the current B200 fleet... hope either that or more B350i to come as 4 will be very busy (MEPT, ACTC, Utility). However with no official word to date we'll no doubt be kept guessing a little longer.
All 3-5 years old with one airframe only showing a total of 7 hours... probably has that nice new aircraft smell to it still!