bikerthai wrote:

DeltaMD90 wrote:

but the P-3 does have an advantage when it comes to loiter time.

Ask any crew if they would rather loiter on a P-8 vs the P-3, the answer would be nearly unanimous. Feedback overwhelmingly favors the P-8A for flight comfort and environment which translate to improved human performance at the tail end of the mission.

bt

Trust me, I know all about the comforts of the P-8. I was talking actual time in the air. Forgot exactly how long the NZers said they would go on some of their longer missions, but it was definitely longer than the 10 or so hours the P-8 can go, max.

It was a point brought up by some of the aircrew, I'm sure the big wigs of the NZ military had a much better idea of their needs and how the P-8 fit into the puzzle

DeltaMD90 wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

DeltaMD90 wrote:

but the P-3 does have an advantage when it comes to loiter time.

Ask any crew if they would rather loiter on a P-8 vs the P-3, the answer would be nearly unanimous. Feedback overwhelmingly favors the P-8A for flight comfort and environment which translate to improved human performance at the tail end of the mission.

bt

Trust me, I know all about the comforts of the P-8. I was talking actual time in the air. Forgot exactly how long the NZers said they would go on some of their longer missions, but it was definitely longer than the 10 or so hours the P-8 can go, max.

It was a point brought up by some of the aircrew, I'm sure the big wigs of the NZ military had a much better idea of their needs and how the P-8 fit into the puzzle

Yes good point however as you alluded to by getting to the area a lot faster the actual time on station is similar not too mention those first few hours can be critical in reducing the search area.

It would be interesting to know at what air speed does the P-8A conduct it's surface search. If you are doing a radar search, you may be able to travel at speeds greater than the P-3, thus increasing the search radius per loiter time. For visual or EOIR search, the extra speed may not be advantageous once you are on station.

bt

I know that Norway was concerned about the spool up time of the engines on the P8 compared to the P3 ...

bikerthai wrote:

It would be interesting to know at what air speed does the P-8A conduct it's surface search. If you are doing a radar search, you may be able to travel at speeds greater than the P-3, thus increasing the search radius per loiter time. For visual or EOIR search, the extra speed may not be advantageous once you are on station.

bt

Depends on the search, but large areas (maximizing area coverage) is flown at max range cruise similar to the 737. There is also max endurance speed that maximizes endurance (obviously). It varies off weight and altitude, but it's around 220-260 knots. For a SAR mission you'd typically fly at a lower altitude and utilize radar, using EO/IR to identify radar hits. That altitude is based off the target and area coverage. Obviously the higher you go, the more area covered, but the harder it is to pick up smaller objects. That's up to the mission commander and whatever guidance is provided.

Searching for a submarine snorkel barely protruding vs debris on the surface, for example, can require different mission profiles:

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=103416

Not sure what the P-3 speeds are. If you have a search nearby then P-3 will win hands down by hours. If you have to fly out and back many hours, the P-8 definitely wins. The P-8 has the legs to make it far out, provide on station time, and fly back, beyond the range of the P-3 (I am pretty sure the P-3 could not fly these missions, El Salvador to Dominica, orbit overhead a while, and fly back in one shot). Very long flights.

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=102799

I was only wondering about the loiter time in the first place because I know many of the NZ missions involve that former mission set I mentioned: close-ish to NZ where they could loiter and loiter and loiter.

It's probably a moot point since despite their P-3s being well maintained, they are still super old, and they have to be replaced with something. I know the P-8 has a high price tag but it's an amazing aircraft

DeltaMD90 wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

It would be interesting to know at what air speed does the P-8A conduct it's surface search. If you are doing a radar search, you may be able to travel at speeds greater than the P-3, thus increasing the search radius per loiter time. For visual or EOIR search, the extra speed may not be advantageous once you are on station.

bt

Depends on the search, but large areas (maximizing area coverage) is flown at max range cruise similar to the 737. There is also max endurance speed that maximizes endurance (obviously). It varies off weight and altitude, but it's around 220-260 knots. For a SAR mission you'd typically fly at a lower altitude and utilize radar, using EO/IR to identify radar hits. That altitude is based off the target and area coverage. Obviously the higher you go, the more area covered, but the harder it is to pick up smaller objects. That's up to the mission commander and whatever guidance is provided.

Searching for a submarine snorkel barely protruding vs debris on the surface, for example, can require different mission profiles:

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=103416

Not sure what the P-3 speeds are. If you have a search nearby then P-3 will win hands down by hours. If you have to fly out and back many hours, the P-8 definitely wins. The P-8 has the legs to make it far out, provide on station time, and fly back, beyond the range of the P-3 (I am pretty sure the P-3 could not fly these missions, El Salvador to Dominica, orbit overhead a while, and fly back in one shot). Very long flights.

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=102799

I was only wondering about the loiter time in the first place because I know many of the NZ missions involve that former mission set I mentioned: close-ish to NZ where they could loiter and loiter and loiter.

It's probably a moot point since despite their P-3s being well maintained, they are still super old, and they have to be replaced with something. I know the P-8 has a high price tag but it's an amazing aircraft

NZ does many long range and long endurance missions. They have a well known reputation for being able to get the most out of their P-3s and routinely shut engines down to maximise endurance thousands of miles from base.

DeltaMD90 wrote:

It's probably a moot point since despite their P-3s being well maintained, they are still super old, and they have to be replaced with something.

If this is true:

http://australianaviation.com.au/2016/0 ... 3k-orions/

then, it doesn't look like they will be retiring their P-3's any time soon. Once the P-8A are integrated into their force structure, they may relegate their P-3's to close shore work to reduce the hours on them.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

DeltaMD90 wrote:

It's probably a moot point since despite their P-3s being well maintained, they are still super old, and they have to be replaced with something.

If this is true:

http://australianaviation.com.au/2016/0 ... 3k-orions/

then, it doesn't look like they will be retiring their P-3's any time soon. Once the P-8A are integrated into their force structure, they may relegate their P-3's to close shore work to reduce the hours on them.

bt

Nah, by the time the Poseidons are in service the Orions will be totally done. They're already having to deal with an big increase in maintenance costs on the older airframes as is. What is more likely and already acknowledged by the NZ government is that a smaller platform will be looked into for possible closer range work. Freeing up the 4 Poseidons for long range and/or high intensity work.

bikerthai wrote:

DeltaMD90 wrote:

It's probably a moot point since despite their P-3s being well maintained, they are still super old, and they have to be replaced with something.

If this is true:

http://australianaviation.com.au/2016/0 ... 3k-orions/

then, it doesn't look like they will be retiring their P-3's any time soon. Once the P-8A are integrated into their force structure, they may relegate their P-3's to close shore work to reduce the hours on them.

bt

Not sure why you have drawn the conclusion that the particular upgrade will mean the P-3Ks stay in service longer? The upgrade specifically is for the ASW system used on the P-8 by the US and RAAF. If anything it actually means NZ will have a smoother transition to the P-8 when it arrives because they will already be familiar with some of the systems. I certainly cannot see the NZ budget being able to maintain both the P-8 and the P-3K in service.

Ozair wrote:

The upgrade specifically is for the ASW system used on the P-8 by the US and RAAF. If anything it actually means NZ will have a smoother transition to the P-8 when it arrives because they will already be familiar with some of the systems.

Definitely smoother transition, but you wouldn't spend millions of dollars upgrading equipment just to have the airframe retired in just a few years. The first upgraded P-3 frames are being delivered now. If the first NZ P-8A gets delivered in the 2022(?) time frame, then the upgrade is only good for 6 years? Maybe the equipment can be ported over as spares, but the non-recurring Engineering cost would be lost. We are looking at scores of millions of dollars if not more. Doesn't makes sense to me.

Maybe $21 mil to tie you over until the P-8A take over is a good deal.

bt

Where would they get the aircrew? I cannot remember the specifics of how their squadrons were set up, but it did not seem like they had an abundance of aircrews. Enough for the P-3 obviously, but enough to keep both aircraft crewed?

I figure they will start receiving aircraft and training a crew or two at a time until everyone has switched over to the P-8. I don't see them being able to fully utilize all the P-3s they have and all the P-8s they will receive simultaneously.

bikerthai wrote:

Maybe $21 mil to tie you over until the P-8A take over is a good deal.
bt

I actually think 21 million for 6 years of capability that smooths the transition to the next aircraft is money well spent, especially in the context of keeping the platform technically relevant.

Put that acquisition in the context of Canada acquiring used RAAF Hornets for over 250 million and essentially using them as spares to extend the life of the Canadian fleet by 5 years. The RAN upgrading the FFGs with SM-2 for essentially 7 years of service for over 600 million.

Hey guys,
I too have heard that NZ may buy a few smaller MPA/SAR type aircraft for close-in work to complement the Poseidons.
Next on the shopping list : new transports to replace the C-130s and 757s... Does anyone think that the order of 4 X Poseidons increases the chances of a few 737-700Cs/-700Fs or even possibly -800Cs/-800Fs coming in as part replacements for the transport fleet? Common maintenance/training and all that?
Cheers,
Bunumuring

bunumuring wrote:

Next on the shopping list : new transports to replace the C-130s and 757s... Does anyone think that the order of 4 X Poseidons increases the chances of a few 737-700Cs/-700Fs or even possibly -800Cs/-800Fs coming in as part replacements for the transport fleet? Common maintenance/training and all that?
Cheers,
Bunumuring

I don’t think so re the 737s as neither would likely have the range of the current 757. While the military transport replacement will almost certainly have greater range than the C-130H the 757 is also used on Antarctic runs and so, if they go for another separate commercial airframe, something with the range for Antarctic runs would be preferred.

I also don’t see a lot of synergy with training. With how prolific the 737 is it shouldn’t be hard to find training for NZDF aircrew via commercial vendors and then complete an operational conversion course to fly the P-8. That saves P-8 time on a limited fleet, something they couldn’t do with the P-3s.

Ozair wrote:

bunumuring wrote:

Next on the shopping list : new transports to replace the C-130s and 757s... Does anyone think that the order of 4 X Poseidons increases the chances of a few 737-700Cs/-700Fs or even possibly -800Cs/-800Fs coming in as part replacements for the transport fleet? Common maintenance/training and all that?
Cheers,
Bunumuring

I don’t think so re the 737s as neither would likely have the range of the current 757. While the military transport replacement will almost certainly have greater range than the C-130H the 757 is also used on Antarctic runs and so, if they go for another separate commercial airframe, something with the range for Antarctic runs would be preferred.

I also don’t see a lot of synergy with training. With how prolific the 737 is it shouldn’t be hard to find training for NZDF aircrew via commercial vendors and then complete an operational conversion course to fly the P-8. That saves P-8 time on a limited fleet, something they couldn’t do with the P-3s.

The A321 would be a good fit here too. But then it would have made more for NZ to go with the A320 M3 MPA.

I'm guessing that most likely means they will be replaced by 767-2C.

bunumuring wrote:

Hey guys,
I too have heard that NZ may buy a few smaller MPA/SAR type aircraft for close-in work to complement the Poseidons.
Next on the shopping list : new transports to replace the C-130s and 757s... Does anyone think that the order of 4 X Poseidons increases the chances of a few 737-700Cs/-700Fs or even possibly -800Cs/-800Fs coming in as part replacements for the transport fleet? Common maintenance/training and all that?
Cheers,
Bunumuring

I could see Airbus offering a package deal for the A400M and C-295 MPA here.

Slug71 wrote:

The A321 would be a good fit here too. But then it would have made more for NZ to go with the A320 M3 MPA.

Not really. While the A320 MPA may have had commonality with Air NZ aircraft the mission systems wouldn’t have. As evidenced by BikerThai’s post earlier up the thread the RNZAF was happy to spend a decent amount of money on a mission system upgrade to maintain commonality with Allied partners. I’m not sure an A320 MPA would have provided that commonality or if it could would have come at a price.

Slug71 wrote:

I'm guessing that most likely means they will be replaced by 767-2C.

It would be a reasonable jump in size and range over the current aircraft.

Slug71 wrote:

I could see Airbus offering a package deal for the A400M and C-295 MPA here.

Vendors generally cannot offer “package deals” when they respond to requirements. Only if the RFT specifically mentioned both use cases and airframe sizes could they offer a package that covers both. Almost certainly the RNZAF will not bid both of these at the same time given their very different mission types, it would introduce significant complexity to the tender and increases risk.

Ozair wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

The A321 would be a good fit here too. But then it would have made more for NZ to go with the A320 M3 MPA.

Not really. While the A320 MPA may have had commonality with Air NZ aircraft the mission systems wouldn’t have. As evidenced by BikerThai’s post earlier up the thread the RNZAF was happy to spend a decent amount of money on a mission system upgrade to maintain commonality with Allied partners. I’m not sure an A320 MPA would have provided that commonality or if it could would have come at a price.

I was thinking more about commonality between a A321 and A320 MPA. VS a A321 with a 737 (P8). Air NZ would would just be an added benefit, albeit small.

Ozair wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

I could see Airbus offering a package deal for the A400M and C-295 MPA here.

Vendors generally cannot offer “package deals” when they respond to requirements. Only if the RFT specifically mentioned both use cases and airframe sizes could they offer a package that covers both. Almost certainly the RNZAF will not bid both of these at the same time given their very different mission types, it would introduce significant complexity to the tender and increases risk.

Im thinking more of a deal sweetener. I would think the C-295 could fetch a good discount for the sale of a couple A400Ms.

Slug71 wrote:

Im thinking more of a deal sweetener. I would think the C-295 could fetch a good discount for the sale of a couple A400Ms.

Again Slug, you don't offer another airframe as a sweetener. How could NZ even evaluate that offer, the live cycle costs, the mission systems. They wouldn't have anyone on the air transport evaluation team who had the knowledge to evaluate the specific capabilities of an MPA capability. How can they even work out the future budget for that.

The total procurement cost of a future air transport procurement will likely be in the 1 to 1.5 billion dollars. NZ would far prefer Airbus offer a greater discount on the up front cost, or offer to train all aircrew in France for the next 30 years for free, or an additional couple of years of spares etc than have an unsolicited additional separate airframe thrown into the equation.

Ozair wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Maybe $21 mil to tie you over until the P-8A take over is a good deal.
bt

I actually think 21 million for 6 years of capability that smooths the transition to the next aircraft is money well spent, especially in the context of keeping the platform technically relevant.

Put that acquisition in the context of Canada acquiring used RAAF Hornets for over 250 million and essentially using them as spares to extend the life of the Canadian fleet by 5 years. The RAN upgrading the FFGs with SM-2 for essentially 7 years of service for over 600 million.

I'm thinking it's an strong deal. $21M probably doesn't buy six years worth of F-35 brake shoes never mind modernize the ASW capabilities of six P3s along with training and maintenance support.

Ozair wrote:

I don’t think so re the 737s as neither would likely have the range of the current 757.

A C-40 with aux fuel tank can approach the 757 range and offers the additional flexibility of a combi

bt

Hey guys,
I doubt that NZ can afford nor have the desire to purchase expensive fleets of brand new 'big' planes. That's why I suggested 737s, which have a good range available on the second hand market. The 757s were of course second hand and then modified for RNZAF service, and I thought that the 737 might have the edge on other types through their longer and more extensive history of being converted into combis and freighters already compared to the A320 or any other suitably sized commercial jet. I thought that commonality of parts and maintenance regimes plus common training MAY provide added incentive to go 737.
Cheers
Bunumuring

bunumuring wrote:

Hey guys,
I thought that commonality of parts and maintenance regimes plus common training MAY provide added incentive to go 737.
Cheers
Bunumuring

What we know is the 757 is a vital component of NZ Antarctic air operations. It transports more people and material than any other NZ aircraft and in 2013 transported half of all joint air cargo (US/NZ). The 757 has a point of no return at three hours into the four and a half hour flight. Given supporting Antarctic operations is a primary mission for the aircraft you would expect that any replacement would be required to better support that. A 737 is going to have a larger point of no return and therefore it is nothing to do with the platform and everything to do with what NZ wants to do with it. Commonality and parts maintenance only goes so far if the aircraft itself cannot complete the mission types it is required to do.

The question then is what do NZ replace it with? Another commercial platform or acquire enough military transports that they can cover what the 757 does today with one fleet. If a commercial platform as you suggest a second hand aircraft is the cheaper option so perhaps a used A330 or 767 is a possibility and should overcome the point of no return issue. I’m not sure if an A330 is going to be too big for the Antarctic but the C-5 has landed there in the past so probably not. Does Boeing have any of the “terrible teens” 787s left going cheap or perhaps they should look at Air NZ 772ERs as they are replaced in the 2020s?

Hey Ozair,
Thanks for your explanation. I see what you mean. Perhaps a converted 767-200ER or two would be best, as I just cannot see RNZAF purchasing any brand new big planes besides whatever replaces the C-130s : and I am increasingly sure that they can't replace both the 757 and the Hercs with the one type. Some posts have suggested the KC-46 but I just can't see that option as being viable on cost or 'needs' basis. Your suggestion of ex-Air NZ 777-200ERs is intriguing though. There has been speculation here in other threads about possible 777 P2F conversions, but for freight companies and not 'military-style' applications such as what RNZAF would require With the Antarctic mission. I do see merit in your suggestion, IF a P2F program is launched for Commercial operators and RNZAF can sign up with a couple of 'kiwi-since-new' 777s.
Cheers,
Bunumuring

bunumuring wrote:

Hey Ozair,
Your suggestion of ex-Air NZ 777-200ERs is intriguing though. There has been speculation here in other threads about possible 777 P2F conversions, but for freight companies and not 'military-style' applications such as what RNZAF would require With the Antarctic mission. I do see merit in your suggestion, IF a P2F program is launched for Commercial operators and RNZAF can sign up with a couple of 'kiwi-since-new' 777s.
Cheers,
Bunumuring

They probably don't even need a P2F conversion. Both the 772 and the A333 have more than enough lower deck cargo capacity to handle the volume of freight and the 757 isn't exactly carrying outsize loads. That would reduce the cost of acquisition for a start but both are bigger heavier aircraft and may not be what NZ wants. Interestingly enough I didn't realize that McMurdo has a new runway that is rated for 60 wheeled landings a year so a bigger aircraft may be fine.

If they go down that route I'd expect the choice to be a B767-2C or A330 MRTT. Both are being used by partner nations so either would work for interoperability.

But we have to wait to see what sort of RFP the NZ government puts out and what the requirements are.

Ozair wrote:

With how prolific the 737 is it shouldn’t be hard to find training for NZDF aircrew via commercial vendors and then complete an operational conversion course to fly the P-8. That saves P-8 time on a limited fleet, something they couldn’t do with the P-3s.

Why go with a commercial vendor when they can just hop over to the neighbor and train there?

https://australianaviation.com.au/2018/ ... ng-centre/

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Ozair wrote:

With how prolific the 737 is it shouldn’t be hard to find training for NZDF aircrew via commercial vendors and then complete an operational conversion course to fly the P-8. That saves P-8 time on a limited fleet, something they couldn’t do with the P-3s.

Why go with a commercial vendor when they can just hop over to the neighbor and train there?

https://australianaviation.com.au/2018/ ... ng-centre/

bt

Still doesn't cover 737 pilot training. :p Anyways, there's plenty of options for that. Either working with the RAAF or a commercial provider to keep hours up if they want to minimize P-8 hours.

But I imagine the RNZAF will do a lot of joint training with their RAAF counterparts to help lessen the cost to both parties. Especially with a facility like that next door.

Update:

Long lead purchase contract has been completed for the NZ and ROK aircrafts.

Boeing Co. has received a $428 million contract to support long-lead material and activities for 16 P-8A aircraft for three countries.

The contract, announced Thursday by the Department of Defense, calls for six planes to be built for the U.S. Navy, as well as four for New Zealand's armed forces and six for South Korea.

https://www.upi.com/Boeing-awarded-428M ... 551458833/
There will be a point in the not too distant future where you will see P-8's from 4 nations parking at Boeing field getting ready for delivery.

bt