Defence ignoring a valued replacement option for its P-3 fleet

(click image to make larger)


Defence as usual. If it is expensive, it must be good.

I don't agree that the P-8A is a useful replacement for the P-3.

First, P-3s can be updated to fly some more years, which equals value. Even if the P-8A works perfect someday (it is still in development), it will only be able to compliment P-3 ability; not replacement for it. The cost per-flying hour of the P-8A is not likely to be good if ADF history is any indicator.

Another product which has the potential to replace the P-3 is the SC-130J. It takes the mission systems from the P-3 and improves on them. It is also a new airframe and Australia already operates C-130Js.

Development risk is as per usual.

However, with an update to the P-3 and an investigation into the SC-130J as a replacement, there is time to replace the P-3 in an orderly manner.

This is a healthy course of action for a country billions in federal debt.

PDF on SC-130J here.