Kiwirob wrote:zeke wrote:Did nothing for MH370
And they couldn’t find the lost argentine sub either.
I don't thing the results would have been any different with an Airbus, Japanese or any other manufacturers airframe..
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Kiwirob wrote:zeke wrote:Did nothing for MH370
And they couldn’t find the lost argentine sub either.
kanban wrote:Kiwirob wrote:zeke wrote:Did nothing for MH370
And they couldn’t find the lost argentine sub either.
I don't thing the results would have been any different with an Airbus, Japanese or any other manufacturers airframe..
Ozair wrote:kanban wrote:Kiwirob wrote:
And they couldn’t find the lost argentine sub either.
I don't thing the results would have been any different with an Airbus, Japanese or any other manufacturers airframe..
Agree and given the significantly more specialized equipment that has been out there for a long time and also hasn’t found anything I not sure why such a claim has any relevance.
Kiwirob wrote:It makes you wonder what is the point in an MPA doesn’t it.
A maritime patrol aircraft (MPA), also known as a patrol aircraft, maritime reconnaissance aircraft, or by the older American term patrol bomber, is a fixed-wing aircraft designed to operate for long durations over water in maritime patrol roles — in particular anti-submarine warfare (ASW), anti-ship warfare (AShW), and search and rescue (SAR).
kanban wrote:Kiwirob wrote:zeke wrote:Did nothing for MH370
And they couldn’t find the lost argentine sub either.
I don't thing the results would have been any different with an Airbus, Japanese or any other manufacturers airframe..
kanban wrote:Kiwirob wrote:zeke wrote:Did nothing for MH370
And they couldn’t find the lost argentine sub either.
I don't thing the results would have been any different with an Airbus, Japanese or any other manufacturers airframe..
VSMUT wrote:WIederling wrote:Kiwirob wrote:Or thinking outside the square team up with BAe and utalise the equipment developed for the Nimrod MRA4.
Wasn't that scrapped and "cleaned" like the Avro Arrow Project ? i.e. unavailable for reuse as either hardware or knowhow.
Only the aircraft/airframes themselves. The electronic equipment was stripped. It will still need some work though, the exact equipment used on the MRA4 will be approach 20 years of age.
But they wouldn't necessarily have to team up with BAe. Most of the important stuff is delivered by subcontractors anyway, but just to mention a few of the bigger names:
Airbus Military itself has done modernization of P-3s, and builds C-235/295 based MPAs. They also did the A319MPA work in the 90s.
Lockheed Martin was left out of the market when the Orion 21/P-7 lost out to the P-8.
Dassault did the Atlantique 3 development work in the 1990s, and also has experience with the Atlantique 1 and 2, as well as a few Falcon based MPAs.
SAAB has the Swordfish line based on the Q400 and Global Express.
Leonardo/Alenia has experience with the ATR 72 ASW.
Various Japanese corporations could bring expertise and technology from the P-1 project.
Embraer has the ERJ-145 based MPA as well.
zeke wrote:Did nothing for MH370
BawliBooch wrote:rhaps defense suppliers should learn from that experience and develop modular electronic suites that can be mounted on A320MPA for such missions. I am assuming most modern MPA's will have a modular design with regards to payload?
bikerthai wrote:BawliBooch wrote:rhaps defense suppliers should learn from that experience and develop modular electronic suites that can be mounted on A320MPA for such missions. I am assuming most modern MPA's will have a modular design with regards to payload?
Modular design require more space as to make it modular you have to build in extra capability to be adaptable. A modular "attach to the fuselage" sensor system does exist, I am not sure if it have been offered or have had any customer. That is all I can say.
bikerthai wrote:From what I hear, the MH370 shows the benefit of a jet over a prop. The distance involved to the search site means that a jet an get there faster which translate to longer on time station (even if the over-all flight time is diminished).
bikerthai wrote:Modular design require more space as to make it modular you have to build in extra capability to be adaptable. A modular "attach to the fuselage" sensor system does exist, I am not sure if it have been offered or have had any customer. That is all I can say.
zeke wrote:P-8 were late to scene.
zeke wrote:
The P-8 did not match the speed or endurance of the gulfsteams sent out there.
zeke wrote:
If I recall correctly the P-8 had a few false radar contacts, and P-3s were sent to the locations to make low level assessments.
JetBuddy wrote:I don't think there's any doubt that Airbus Defence & Space could pull this project off. They know what they're doing. The question is if there's enough of a market left after P-8A has swept up all these orders lately.
If costs could be kept to an absolute minimum, maybe it would be worth doing with a few dozen secure orders from France and Germany. It would be based on the A320neo after all, which will most likely be in production for 20 more years or so. Keeping the A320MPA on offer for this period of time might recoup the investment. I'm sure there will be careful calculations done on this.
BawliBooch wrote:Apart from initial purchase cost, there is also the issue of Ownership cost spread across the aircrafts useful life. How do these 3 - A320, P8i and the P1 - compare on that score?
bikerthai wrote:BawliBooch wrote:Apart from initial purchase cost, there is also the issue of Ownership cost spread across the aircrafts useful life. How do these 3 - A320, P8i and the P1 - compare on that score?
The A320 frame and the 737 will have lower maintenance and spares support cost. The A320 NEO being a newer frame and might out last the 737 NG in the long run. But both frame seems to have sufficient support to last the life of the program.
The only thing I see that will put the P-8A over the A320 MMA with respect to the ownership cost and useful life is anyone with a P-8A and the P-8I for that matter, can benefit from any mission system upgrades that the US Navy decides to implement. Once the US Navy pay for any upgrades, it's just a matter of buying the upgrade (with the standard FMS fees) and not having to pay for the up-front development. This was done with many of the AWACS upgrades that NATO received.
In fact, the next batch of P-8I aircraft will get the mission computing upgrade that the US Navy incorporated a few lots ago. In this case it may be more of a convenience for Boeing as it would keep the production line more common. But for India it's also a win as they got upgraded system without all the hassle and cost of doing or paying for the development themselves.
bt
angad84 wrote:What's the current production Increment/Block standard?
columba wrote:According to German media reports the two ministers of defence of France and Germany will sign a letter of intent to develop a new MPA on April 27th.
CX747 wrote:Time will tell how this plays out. The latest news has New Zealand and Saudi Arabia selecting the P-8.
Kiwirob wrote:CX747 wrote:Time will tell how this plays out. The latest news has New Zealand and Saudi Arabia selecting the P-8.
The NZ govts has put the Orian and Herc replacement on the back burner for now. They let the P8 options drop.
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
Link? Only news I've seen recently is tapping the brakes on the P-3 replacement after asking the US for an extension on the P-8 offer.
keesje wrote:Most likely it will become a derivative. Using high MTOW A320NEO components.
It the market is large enough a dedicated optimized platform might become feasible.
It seems the requirements changed a lot since the cold war.
Aircraft like the CN-235 / 295 MPA and ATR 42/72 MP could provide coastal coverage.
A bigger platform should probably be more capable than traditional ASW / patrol.
German navy officials were not immediately available for further comment on the program, or how it will tie into an effort by eight NATO allies, including France and Germany, to cooperate on “multinational maritime multi-mission aircraft capabilities.” The program also includes Canada, Poland, Italy, Spain, Turkey and Greece.
LockheedBBD wrote:Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germ ... SKCN1HD29AGerman navy officials were not immediately available for further comment on the program, or how it will tie into an effort by eight NATO allies, including France and Germany, to cooperate on “multinational maritime multi-mission aircraft capabilities.” The program also includes Canada, Poland, Italy, Spain, Turkey and Greece.
VSMUT wrote:
Interesting. Those nations between them currently operate 53 Orions and Atlantiques, as well as numerous smaller types such as Casa's and PZL M28s. Poland, Italy and Turkey completely lack equipment in this class, although Italy used to operate 18x Atlantiques. We could be looking at about 70 just for the program partners. It could well exceed 100 orders with potential exports included.
Kiwirob wrote:
Or they could do that smart thing and buy the already existing built for purpose P1 and add local content.
parapente wrote:Imho it only makes sense if all these countries are involved,there is a need for scale.Otherwise the P8 seems to do the job perfectly well -no?
VSMUT wrote:The P-8 is going out of production soon, and with the recent turn taken by the US government,
bikerthai wrote:VSMUT wrote:The P-8 is going out of production soon, and with the recent turn taken by the US government,
If by soon you mean 5 to 10 years from now, you will be right. If they were to fulfill the current US requirement of about 117 frames and add to that the international orders, you will reach the 5 years threshold. If you add to that some potential future sales to both the US and India (and additional options from the RAAF and UK) you may be able to approach 10 years (optimistic).
If the contract to the A320 MMA were to be signed today, figuring about 1-2 years for design/development, 1-2 years for mod and testing, you'll get the first frame in about 5 years (if there is no significant delays).
Either way, by that time, the US administration, and policies, will change (Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter).
bt
VSMUT wrote:. Any Next Generation specific parts will have to be ordered well in advance, hence why ordering the P-8 in 3 years wont be possible.
KICT wrote:Surely a well-target EMP would render that A320's flight control system useless in short order.
ThePointblank wrote:It appears there are multiple countries interested in a joint development for a new MPA:
https://www.defensenews.com/smr/munich- ... craft-buy/
France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, Turkey, and now, Poland and Canada are all working to jointly buy a fleet of new maritime patrol aircraft.
Of the contenders, Boeing is of course proposing the P-8, while Airbus is expected to bid with the A320 based MPA. Bombardier and Saab is proposing their own MPA based off the Global 6000 platform.
If the contract to the A320 MMA were to be signed today, figuring about 1-2 years for design/development, 1-2 years for mod and testing, you'll get the first frame in about 5 years (if there is no significant delays).
LockheedBBD wrote:Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germ ... SKCN1HD29AGerman navy officials were not immediately available for further comment on the program, or how it will tie into an effort by eight NATO allies, including France and Germany, to cooperate on “multinational maritime multi-mission aircraft capabilities.” The program also includes Canada, Poland, Italy, Spain, Turkey and Greece.
VSMUT wrote:This project will be a prime candidate for European Defence Fund grants too. These only apply on European aircraft and equipment of course, so 737, C-130, Dash-8 and Global 6000 based projects won't apply.
In a fresh bid to win its first major foreign arms deal since World War Two, Japan is proposing its P-1 submarine hunter for a French-German project to develop a marine surveillance aircraft, two Japanese government sources said
Discussion between the three governments began last year. Japanese officials also asked Kawasaki Heavy Industries, which makes the P-1, to discuss possible partnerships with France’s Dassault Aviation and Thales SA, said the sources, who have direct knowledge of the proposal but are not authorized to speak to the media.
“If they try and build it from scratch it will cost a lot and their potential market is small, even if Spain or other European countries buy it,” one of the sources said of the European project.
But the P-1 may be a tough sell in a competition with plenty of home-field heavyweights.
Airbus has said it is exploring military applications for its A320neo passenger jet family, including a maritime patrol version. Two European defense sources said French planemaker Dassault Aviation is ready to adapt its Falcon 8X business jet for such missions. Both companies declined to comment.
Boeing is also likely to offer its P-8A Poseidon.
“We have introduced the P-1 to other countries with the backing of the Japanese Ministry of Defence,” a Kawasaki Heavy spokeswoman said. “However, we are not able to discuss individual cases.”
A Ministry of Defense spokesman in Tokyo said Japan was looking at several ways to work with France and Germany on defense technologies after signing separate cooperation agreements. But the spokesman added that “we are not in talks aimed at joint developments and have no plan to conceive a three-way project.”
Germany wants to replace its aging fleet of maritime surveillance planes in response to an increase in Russian submarine patrols to a level not seen since the end of the Cold War.
The defense ministers from Germany and France will sign a document at this week’s Berlin Airshow agreeing to explore the joint development of a new maritime surveillance aircraft, German military sources said.
A spokesman for the German defense ministry declined to comment on discussions, adding, “Germany and France are considering many possibilities to expand the existing good cooperation between the two countries’ militaries.”
The two countries are exploring several other joint procurement or development projects, including a new fighter jet and a military drone. The two countries will also jointly operate a new fleet of Lockheed Martin C-130J transport planes.
Officials at the French embassy in Tokyo were not immediately available to comment.
OVERSEAS SALES
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe ended a decades-long ban on arms exports four years ago.
But since then, his government has been unable to sell defense gear overseas as long-isolated Japanese defense contractors struggled in the competitive global arms market.
In 2015, Japan offered the P-1 to Britain, which chose Boeing’s P-8 instead from a crowded field. In 2016 it lost out on a lucrative contract to supply Australia with a fleet of diesel-powered submarines, work that went to French naval contractor DCNS.
European defense analysts and military sources cautioned that the P-1 would face stiff competition for the French-German project, which aims to field a new aircraft by 2035.
“At this point, it’s completely premature to either say Japan and Kawasaki have a chance or that they do not,” said one of the military sources.
Japan, which wants stronger security ties with France and Germany, plans to display two of its P-1 aircraft at the five-day Berlin air show. The P-1, which is designed to operate both at high altitude and at low speeds closer to the water, is replacing Japan’s fleet of turboprop Lockheed Martin P-3C Orions.
Germany also operates the Orion, while France flies the Atlantique 2, or ATL2, produced by Dassault Aviation in the 1980s.
Saab, Bombardier, Israel Aerospace Industry and Leonardo are among other companies seeking to enter the maritime patrol market.
The P-1 patrols Japan’s territorial waters stretching from the Pacific to the East China Sea, where Beijing and Tokyo are locked in a territorial dispute over a group of uninhabited islets.
The four-engine aircraft, which was delayed by fuselage and wing cracks and engine problems, entered service in 2015. It is the world’s first production aircraft to use fiber optic cables to transmit flight control commands from its cockpit.
bikerthai wrote:Fielded by 2035? Unless they push the time line to the left, the P-8A is probably out of contention then.
bt
bikerthai wrote:Fielded by 2035? Unless they push the time line to the left, the P-8A is probably out of contention then.
bt