The P-1 Looks like an amazing maritime aircraft. Shame noone has ordered it so far, perhaps a DC8 That went through a hot wash...

Three things (among others) are going against the P-1.

1) 4 engines instead of 2. All the other competition currently on-going for maritime patrol aircraft (whether deluxe or basic) involve 2 engines.
2) No rotary launchers. The P-8A has rotary launchers which gives it more flexibility.
3) Commonality. The P-8A electronic suite has the purse of the US government backing it. Being able to use that suite saves money in the long run as any upgrades performed by the US may be obtained a a much more reasonable price by foreign customer.

bt

What is point 2? Don't understand this point.

Point 1, might be an advantage, you can turn them off when patrolling for submarines, I thought the P-3 used to do this in order to save fuel. The P-8 can't for obvious reasons. Fuel consumption in it self-doesn't really matter for military a/c in general.

Point 3. The biggest point I would say. And the P-1 might (probably) be more expensive because of the small production run.

New Zealand seems to have been interested, have they gone the P-8 route yet?

Dutchy wrote:

What is point 2? Don't understand this point.

Assume bikerthai is talking about the three sonarbouy launchers located aft of the weapons bay and not the weapon bay itself? They are rotary launchers that can be re-stocked in flight from internal storage.

The P-1 also has this capability though


As to the original question, not sure whether they will get any exports or not the Japanese will probably have to go on a sales tour to drum up business. Japan also doesn't have much of a record for supporting exported military systems given they have exported so little.

When the RAF was looking for maritime aircraft a few years ago I was very excited to see the P1 at RIAT and got my hopes up that they might get it, much more exciting to see than a 737 with some prickles but alas it wasn't to be. P-8 was chosen for good reason so I'm not too disappointed but variety is the spice of life.

Fred

Dutchy wrote:

New Zealand seems to have been interested, have they gone the P-8 route yet?

If they have the budget, then highly probable as it will be common with the RAAF. They are obtaining approval through the US government, although there is no final decision.

flipdewaf wrote:

P-8 was chosen for good reason so I'm not too disappointed but variety is the spice of life.

The UK is has a special relationship with the US and will have the opportunity to get some advanced enhancements not available to other P-8 customer let alone the P-1. There is already talk about obtaining one of these enhancements. So the choice of P-8A will probably a good decision for the UK. And if you want variety, you always paint the craft camo . . .

bt

bikerthai wrote:

3) Commonality. The P-8A electronic suite has the purse of the US government backing it. Being able to use that suite saves money in the long run as any upgrades performed by the US may be obtained a a much more reasonable price by foreign customer.

Not just commonality because of the US government. Commonality with the thousands of 737NGs out there. The P-8 is powered by CFM56s for example. The P-1 is powered by the IHI Corporation F7, an engine specifically developed for the P1. The commercial commonality lowers parts and overhaul costs.

Ozair wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

What is point 2? Don't understand this point.

Assume bikerthai is talking about the three sonarbouy launchers located aft of the weapons bay and not the weapon bay itself? They are rotary launchers that can be re-stocked in flight from internal storage.

The P-1 also has this capability though


As to the original question, not sure whether they will get any exports or not the Japanese will probably have to go on a sales tour to drum up business. Japan also doesn't have much of a record for supporting exported military systems given they have exported so little.

If he's talking about the bomb bay, I got bad news. The P-8 doesn't have a rotary launcher either, just 6 hardpoints.

bikerthai wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

New Zealand seems to have been interested, have they gone the P-8 route yet?

If they have the budget, then highly probable as it will be common with the RAAF. They are obtaining approval through the US government, although there is no final decision.

US State Department approved the potential sale of four P-8s in April, but NZ has yet to decide. Even if facilities need a major overhaul to handle it, commonality with the Aussies, US and UK will likely win. Four P-8s isn't many though, even if the P-8 is much more capable, given what the six P-3s currently do; it's a lot of water they have to cover for a variety of roles. There were also two P-1s at Whenuapai in November last year for the RNZN's 75th anniversary, so they have been looked-over by the RNZAF.
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/ne ... ed-support

NZ is going to need to find the budget from somewhere: those Hercs and P-3s are only 50 years old and are critical for NZ's emergency relief and SAR capability, on top of their other roles.

Polot wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

3) Commonality. The P-8A electronic suite has the purse of the US government backing it. Being able to use that suite saves money in the long run as any upgrades performed by the US may be obtained a a much more reasonable price by foreign customer.

Not just commonality because of the US government. Commonality with the thousands of 737NGs out there. The P-8 is powered by CFM56s for example. The P-1 is powered by the IHI Corporation F7, an engine specifically developed for the P1. The commercial commonality lowers parts and overhaul costs.

This to me is the big miss with the P1 and will make it almost impossible to sell.

Let's think about an MPA and where you want to take your risk. Engines and air frame really aren't high on that list. You invest plenty of money in everything else. IIRC the engines of the P1 have already had some issues (probably resolved by now) and there were also some minor air frame issues as well. The 737 is probably the most flown aircraft of all time in terms of hours. You can likely get parts and support for the basic air frame almost anywhere in the world. It just makes too much sense to not do it this way.

And the scuttlebutt is that Boeing (and the Japanese) knows the P-8A is a better plane (performance and price) than the P-1. However, politics and pride as it is may prevent the Japanese from ever buying the P-8A.

bt

ZKNCI wrote:

Even if facilities need a major overhaul to handle it, commonality with the Aussies, US and UK will likely win.

Do what the Norwegian, UK and US has done. Cooperate on one overhaul/maintenance base and save on money. I would guess that Australia will be the center for P-8A maintenance/repair and overhaul in the Far East customers, as Boeing already have a strong presence there. Potential customers may include Singapore and Korea.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

ZKNCI wrote:

Even if facilities need a major overhaul to handle it, commonality with the Aussies, US and UK will likely win.

Do what the Norwegian, UK and US has done. Cooperate on one overhaul/maintenance base and save on money. I would guess that Australia will be the center for P-8A maintenance/repair and overhaul in the Far East customers, as Boeing already have a strong presence there. Potential customers may include Singapore and Korea.

bt

No doubt NZ would join up with the Aussies for overhauls, it's more of whether the runways at Whenuapai can handle a fully-loaded P-8. There's been a lot of housing development around there lately, which doesn't help any base upgrades. I honestly don't see this going any way other than the P-8, but there will need to be spending on local facilities.
I'd suggest NZ should also get a short-range multi-role transport type to support it where short-range local SAR or visual spotting don't justify a P-8, take some load off the Herc replacement and replace the long-retired Andovers, but that's unlikely.

Looks like a decent size seating area with what appear to be rearward facing seats, just forward of the wing.


I have only seen this in RAF aircraft before.

I think it's possible that the NZ government does some sort of dual purchase where we get P-1s and C-2s. Given the commonality it might be enough to be worth it.

Max Q wrote:

Looks like a decent size seating area with what appear to be rearward facing seats, just forward of the wing.

If you are talking about the P-8A, then yes. These come with the standard aircraft and are use primarily for bringing on extra crew on ferry flight to deployment or for VIP etc or longer missions.

There are also two sleeper seat near the forward entry door for crew rest and 4 seats aft of the cabinets at the mission planning table. If you include the sixth console, then the P-8 can take up to 21 persons plus the flight crew. The number of personnel you can add is not dependent on the floor space but rather the plumbing for oxygen for cabin decompression.

bt

The P-1 is built very specifically to Japanese requirements and as such will be too sophisticated and expensive for other air forces of lesser means. Consequently, something simpler like an An-32MP variant may have better traction in the wider reconnaissance and MP market.....


https://achtungskyhawk.files.wordpress. ... g_0011.jpg



http://www.defensa.com/adjuntos/Los%20c ... 20(Antonov).jpg

Devilfish wrote:

The P-1 is built very specifically to Japanese requirements and as such will be too sophisticated and expensive for other air forces of lesser means. Consequently, something simpler like an An-32MP variant may have better traction in the wider reconnaissance and MP market.....


https://achtungskyhawk.files.wordpress. ... g_0011.jpg



http://www.defensa.com/adjuntos/Los%20c ... 20(Antonov).jpg

Maybe for those needing it for local operations.
The RNZAF covers the largest SAR water body in the world so needs fast, long range, long endurance aircraft.
This is the P-8s to lose and the only reason why it could lose would be on price. The RNZAF budget probably only allows for 4x P-8s where in reality they need 5 of them (they have 6x P-3K but the P-8 is much more capable).
Likewise the A-400M is the most suitable candidate for their transport needs but it's cost may make them stick with C-130J (they have C-130H presently which can't do all the jobs they need it to).