New Zealand joins the P-8 club...

[Slater]

I'm mildly surprised that the Kiwis wanted to spend that much, but I suppose that a MPA is necessary for them:

 

http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/new_zealand_17-13.pdf

[Kiwidave4]

I am not sure that the Kiwis did want to spend that much but these decisions are made under huge political pressure and have more to do with what our so called Allies want than what is best for us.

[Slater]

So the P-8 is not the best fit for New Zealand?

[Vlamgat9]

What are the alternatives? 4 isn't a very large fleet....

[Calum]

the only logical choice IMHO . Pity it's only 4 frames,  that said we survived with 5 P-3's for years. And the P-8 should be more reliable than the P-3 so you'd expect 3 available most of time  

[LDSModeller]

39 minutes ago, Vlamgat9 said:

What are the alternatives? 4 isn't a very large fleet....

 

Our Current Fleet of 5 P 3 Orions has done Very Very well over the last 51 years.

 

No Operational Losses and with a 30 Million Square Km ( 18,641135 Miles)

patrol area in the SouthPacific (largest in the World), the RNZAF has its work cut out for it.

Just recently (this past week) one of our P3's found a poor shipwrecked guy

in the South Pacific (veritable needle in a haysatck) floating only in a small life raft.

 

Hard to say how the P8 will do, but given our Past History, I'm sure our Air Force will

be up to the challege.

 

And of course we've won the Fincastle trophy a number of times too......

 

Regards

 

Alan

[Calum]

6 P-3's Alan . NZ4206 is an ex RAAF P-3B bought second hand in the 1980's IIRC

[CharlieNZ]

It's in no way confirmed that the purchase is going ahead.

 

And remember what happened last time the National govt signed an aircraft procurement deal with the US just before an election... F-16s anyone?

 

I think a decision from NZ isn't due until July, which has more to do with the Boeing production run than anything else.

[LDSModeller]

13 hours ago, Calum said:

6 P-3's Alan . NZ4206 is an ex RAAF P-3B bought second hand in the 1980's IIRC

Hi Callum,

 

Keep forgetting that one, still 6 airframes and 30,000,000 Square Kms of

patrol area still quite a feat

[Slater]

Maybe if Boeing throws in free hats and T-shirts?

[stevehnz]

4 P-8s is probably maximum spend for them just now but keep in mind, much of the RNZAF's  patrolling could potentially be done by a Hercules replacement as far as SAR is concerned if the powers that be make the sensible choice & specify an aircraft with more than just heavy lift capacity, such as the Embraer KC-390. Potentially a replacement for the 757s as well as long range logistics & capable patroller.

Steve.

[k5054nz]

17 hours ago, CharlieNZ said:

It's in no way confirmed that the purchase is going ahead.

 

I think a decision from NZ isn't due until July, which has more to do with the Boeing production run than anything else.

^ ^ This. Every foreign forum I've visited that has this news doesn't have the much-needed ? at the end of the topic title!

[Kiwidave4]

42 minutes ago, stevehnz said:

4 P-8s is probably maximum spend for them just now but keep in mind, much of the RNZAF's  patrolling could potentially be done by a Hercules replacement as far as SAR is concerned if the powers that be make the sensible choice & specify an aircraft with more than just heavy lift capacity, such as the Embraer KC-390. Potentially a replacement for the 757s as well as long range logistics & capable patroller.

Steve.

 

Yes, the problem with the defence force decision makers, and people like LDSModeller, is that they seem to think the taxpayer exists purely to spend billions on equipment that is no use. The Orions main function is search and rescue, fisheries protection and humanitarian aid.  Just as all the talk about Hercules replacements miss the point that we need a smallish long range transport with excellent short field performance as it will mainly be used to take aid to the Islands, so the Orion replacement is formulating around how much surveilance we can do for other people.

 

A dual purpose transport/long range patrol fleet would be a better value for money package and address the actual role of the defence force. The hysterical posturing about the threats to our safety could easily be averted by being more discerning about who our 'freinds' are.

 

The history of defence force spending is a litany of bad decisions;- LAVs that are mostly unserviceable, cannot be transported by Herc, and as seen in East Timor, are unable to go where the M113 can. Then there is the supply ship that was bought for top dollar and only then found to be unseaworthy. And the F-16 rip off which would have seen us effectively buying a field full of scrap metal, then paying through the nose to have the airframes fitted out, then paying fixed term contracts for parts and training. Only one nation was ever going to come out of that deal a winner and it certainly wasnt going to be us.

[LDSModeller]

1 hour ago, Kiwidave4 said:

Yes, the problem with the defence force decision makers, and people like LDSModeller, is that they seem to think the taxpayer exists purely to spend billions on equipment that is no use.

So I think the Goverment is made of money!!!!! Go Figure!!!

Here's something to think about. I have served as frontline, protecting this country's borders for the past 20+ years.

I know full well what money the goverment does and doesn't have. My colleagues and  are called upon time and time again to do more with less........

 

I also know full well what Government advisors do/don't do, I deal with them all the time, and have to live with their decison making, and a lot of times it's very unpalatable. Luckily under the current Government, we have had advisors who will listen to frontline staff, there others who don't.

 

There's a termed coined in Government "Fit For Purpose" . What do we need to look after our borders/economic zones - how many other aircraft will have the range to fly the Southern Antaratic fishing areas and loiter - please name some. Perhaps the current advisors will look in and take note.

What of other countries in the South Pacific (who heavily rely on us), and meeting defence commitments such as the P3K's doing Anti Pirate duty etc Indian Ocean/Abrabian area is quite large area wise

1 hour ago, Kiwidave4 said:

The history of defence force spending is a litany of bad decisions;

So buying the Lockheed P3B Orion, Lockheed C130H, Bell UH-1D/H Iroquis were bad decisions?

I would think all those who have been saved/assisted/brought relief over the past 45-50 years would disagree with you vehemently.

Edited April 30, 2017 by LDSModeller

[Kiwidave4]

22 minutes ago, LDSModeller said:

So buying the Lockheed P3B Orion, Lockheed C130H, Bell UH-1D/H Iroquis were bad decisions?

 

 

No I dont, but you conveniently overlook the examples I gave above, and also the grounded MH90 helicopters that had known problems before they were ordered.

 

 

[stevehnz]

Alan, while I can't argue against your inside knowledge & I'd agree that the examples you mention are those of thoroughly successful purchases, in those cases tho'  half a century ago, there undoubtably have been less successful examples too, more recently,  as mentioned earlier, the LAVs & the HMS Charles Upham, an insult to a proud name in its ineptness IMHO. We're at a time now of needing to replace the C-130s, P-3s & very soon if not now, the 757s. Very careful thought needs given to getting the right balance to fulfill those roles, somewhat more careful than we saw with the LAVs & the Upham. I do believe the P-8s are probably the best option globally for the duties as you mention but if we're to cover their roles with just 4 of them, other choices, as I alluded to in my earlier post must be carefully thought out to compliment the P-8s without compromising their primary roles, a tough call, maybe.

Steve.

 

[LDSModeller]

1 minute ago, stevehnz said:

Alan, while I can't argue against your inside knowledge & I'd agree that the examples you mention are those of thoroughly successful purchases, in those cases tho'  half a century ago, there undoubtably have been less successful examples too, more recently,  as mentioned earlier, the LAVs & the HMS Charles Upham, an insult to a proud name in its ineptness IMHO. We're at a time now of needing to replace the C-130s, P-3s & very soon if not now, the 757s. Very careful thought needs given to getting the right balance to fulfill those roles, somewhat more careful than we saw with the LAVs & the Upham. I do believe the P-8s are probably the best option globally for the duties as you mention but if we're to cover their roles with just 4 of them, other choices, as I alluded to in my earlier post must be carefully thought out to compliment the P-8s without compromising their primary roles, a tough call, maybe.

Steve.

 

Hi Steve,

 

I know we have to replace the current fleet, you brook no arguemnt from me there.

The A4's were due fro replacement at the time, no arguement about that either (just the way and/who, got rid of them)

As I mentioned fit for purpose is the "Motto" these days.

A few years ago an RNZAF C130 (and also just last year) was called upon to carry a full sized Elephant to New Zealand. None of the commercial carriers would touch it and Auckland Airport would not allow it to land, so diverted to Whenuapai. Not the norm, but what other aircraft could do that?

Like all things I guess we will have to wait and see?

 

Regards

 

Alan

[dcrfan]

2 hours ago, Kiwidave4 said:

 

 

The history of defence force spending is a litany of bad decisions;-

You don't let facts get in the way of your story:

LAVs that are mostly unserviceable - untrue

cannot be transported by Herc - untrue.  Have read of this article

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0404/S00190/successful-nzlav-flight-in-air-force-hercules.htm

and as seen in East Timor, are unable to go where the M113 can.  NZ did not have LAV in East Timor (Aussie did but they were LAV II not LAV III NZ has).  On the flip side LAV have proven to be able to do jobs M113 could not - ask the guys and girls who operated them in Afghanistan.  

[Kiwidave4]

22 minutes ago, dcrfan said:

You don't let facts get in the way of your story:

LAVs that are mostly unserviceable - untrue

cannot be transported by Herc - untrue.  Have read of this article

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0404/S00190/successful-nzlav-flight-in-air-force-hercules.htm

and as seen in East Timor, are unable to go where the M113 can.  NZ did not have LAV in East Timor (Aussie did but they were LAV II not LAV III NZ has).  On the flip side LAV have proven to be able to do jobs M113 could not - ask the guys and girls who operated them in Afghanistan.  

 

LAVs have a record of high unserviceability...fact.

 

I did not say that we had LAVs in East Timor. But our M113s went where the Aussies could not go.

 

Yes you can put a LAV in a Herc...you cant get it to any of the places we would likely need to go.

[dcrfan]

2 hours ago, Kiwidave4 said:

 

LAVs have a record of high unserviceability...fact.

 

I did not say that we had LAVs in East Timor. But our M113s went where the Aussies could not go.

 

Yes you can put a LAV in a Herc...you cant get it to any of the places we would likely need to go.

I'm sorry you are misinformed about LAV having a record of high unserviceability.    

 

The M113, both NZ and Aussie were definitely the most capable vehicle in the theatre as far as mobility goes - even better than helos much of the time due to weather.  However a LAV offers advantages in many other characteristics.   

 

C130 limited range with LAV loaded, now your changing the problem I agree range is limited but perhaps like many you misunderstand.  It was never envisioned LAV would be moved long (strategic) distances in a C-130.  Short moves within a theatre are possible i.e. within NZ (in support of NZ Police) or perhaps Darwin to Dili. 

[Slater]

Since the P-8 is essentially a modified Boeing 737, one would think that it could benefit from the established worldwide support network for that aircraft.

[CharlieNZ]

On 30/04/2017 at 2:43 PM, Kiwidave4 said:

 

Yes, the problem with the defence force decision makers, and people like LDSModeller, is that they seem to think the taxpayer exists purely to spend billions on equipment that is no use. The Orions main function is search and rescue, fisheries protection and humanitarian aid.  Just as all the talk about Hercules replacements miss the point that we need a smallish long range transport with excellent short field performance as it will mainly be used to take aid to the Islands, so the Orion replacement is formulating around how much surveilance we can do for other people.

 

A dual purpose transport/long range patrol fleet would be a better value for money package and address the actual role of the defence force. The hysterical posturing about the threats to our safety could easily be averted by being more discerning about who our 'freinds' are.

 

The history of defence force spending is a litany of bad decisions;- LAVs that are mostly unserviceable, cannot be transported by Herc, and as seen in East Timor, are unable to go where the M113 can. Then there is the supply ship that was bought for top dollar and only then found to be unseaworthy. And the F-16 rip off which would have seen us effectively buying a field full of scrap metal, then paying through the nose to have the airframes fitted out, then paying fixed term contracts for parts and training. Only one nation was ever going to come out of that deal a winner and it certainly wasnt going to be us.

 

The main operational output of the P-3K2 is ISR. Its public face is SAR etc, but that is not its main role.

 

You must be the only person in history, except perhaps Helen, to describe the F-16 deal in those terms. They were block 15OCU aircraft, which were a good deal to replace the A-4s. They were essentially Block 25s C models with the APG66V2 instead of the APG68 radar and they had the F100-PW-220 engine. To put the up front price into perspective, they were going to cost $250m NZD for 28 aircraft. At the same time we paid $450m for 5 SH-2G(NZ) Seasprites.

 

 

 

 

[stevehnz]

32 minutes ago, CharlieNZ said:

 

 To put the up front price into perspective, they were going to cost $250m NZD for 28 aircraft. At the same time we paid $450m for 5 SH-2G(NZ) Seasprites.

& 653m for 105 LAVs only a fraction of which have ever been deployed at any one time & which is generally acknowledged to be an example of poor defense spending decision making, one reason why we really do need to get things right this time around.

Steve.

[junglierating]

Blimey this thread is a bit of a storm in a tea cup....which reminds me can it make tea.....do kiwis drink tea even

[stevehnz]

Hell yes, but if it didn't come with the right gear, we'd just improvise our own.

Steve.