Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ASW / MPA Aircraft

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ASW / MPA Aircraft

    I've been doing a lot of research into maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) recently. I've always debated the replacement of the P-3C Orion with the P-8A Poseidon by the US Navy. The P-3 seemed to be almost perfectly suited for the job, with the exception of having a rough/bumpy ride at low altitudes and not having much more room to grow into new mission systems.

    The P-8 seems to be ill-suited for low-speed, low-altitude flying where the P-3 seemed to thrive. It also lacks a magnetic anomaly detector (MAD) boom (the importance of which can be debated). But it has much improved speed over the P-3 such that although it doesn't quite have the endurance of the P-3 it can get on station more quickly.

    The US Navy has seemingly dealt with the limitations of the P-8 by changing the tactics of how it hunts submarines. Employing higher altitude search patterns and sensors and even developing a high altitude launched torpedo. I know the P-8 was designed to do a lot of other tasks - notably ISR - as well, but I was strictly interested in the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capabilities of the aircraft in question.

    I've always been of the opinion that the P-7 / Orion21 design would have been the most capable MPA as it keeps all the best attributes of the P-3 on a slightly larger air frame that would be capable of newer (and larger) mission systems.

    That may have been until I started reading a lot about the Japanese Kawasaki P-1 MPA this week. It seems that when the P-7 was cancelled the Japanese Defense Forces began designing their own dedicated MPA from scratch. The result is the Kawasaki P-1, which is to my knowledge the only modern design dedicated ASW aircraft flying today, as even the P-3 was a derivative of the Lockheed Electra.

    It seems to be a fantastic airplane that in many ways combines the best attributes of the P-3 and P-8. Turbojet engines for high speed and high altitude flying, with a wing designed for low and slow flying.

    What I can't decide, is if the higher maximum speed of the P-1 is better in the MPA role than the almost instant throttle response that the P-3 can achieve from it's turboprops (I've read it's quite something with the controllable pitch props provide not only immediate throttle response but instantaneous increased lift as they blow more air across the wings).

    After doing more reading, I'm somewhat surprised the RAF decided to go with the P-8. I can understand they want to maximize inter-operability with the US Navy, but it seems to me the P-1 is by far the better aircraft at ASW work. Japan has apparently reduced it's self-imposed exporting restriction on military hardware.

    Anyways, the ramblings of an OCD military enthusiast hell-bent on declaring a king of the MPA world. If anyone has any thoughts on the subject I'd be interested in reading.

    Boomer.

  • #2
    Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
    Anyways, the ramblings of an OCD military enthusiast hell-bent on declaring a king of the MPA world. If anyone has any thoughts on the subject I'd be interested in reading.

    Boomer.
    I doubt you'll be able to select one. What are the basis for "kingship"? Most nations don't need a giant like the P-8; many have versions of the CASA CN-235 or C-295, or similar aircraft, and some versions are chock-full of highend electronics, the main diference from the P-8 being range/endurance.

    And, of those that could need a P-8, how many could aford it?...

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
      I doubt you'll be able to select one. What are the basis for "kingship"? Most nations don't need a giant like the P-8; many have versions of the CASA CN-235 or C-295, or similar aircraft, and some versions are chock-full of highend electronics, the main diference from the P-8 being range/endurance.

      And, of those that could need a P-8, how many could aford it?...
      Fair. Every country will have a different set of operational requirements for their MPA. I was just impressed after reading up on the P-1, that it effectively can do everything the P-8 can in terms of speed, altitude, being a communications and ISR hub (now granted they'll have different mission packages being from the JMDF vs USN), while at the same time retaining the basic low level, low speed characteristics that the P-3 offered, making it a deadly ASW asset (something the P-8 lacks IMO).

      I sure hope someone chooses to buy the P-1. It seems like an ideal replacement aircraft for the P-3, much more so then the P-8. The Japanese must take their ASW work very seriously, to spend the money to design from stratch a dedicated ASW/MPA aircraft.

      Click image for larger version

Name:	P-8A_of_VP-5_and_Japanese_Kawasaki_P-1_at_NAF_Atsugi_in_2014.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	243.2 KB
ID:	1468049
      Last edited by JA Boomer; 11 Jan 16,, 17:42.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
        After doing more reading, I'm somewhat surprised the RAF decided to go with the P-8. I can understand they want to maximize inter-operability with the US Navy, but it seems to me the P-1 is by far the better aircraft at ASW work.
        Why do you think so? The airframes themselves have very similar performance.

        If anything, I'd give the nod to choice of airframe to the P-8. It is based on the best selling commercial airliner in history. This means the P-8 gets immediate access to worldwide infrastructure and a huge base of spares to draw from without any additional investment. Similarly, the 737 has a long and successful track record with billions of dollars invested into it's design and engines over the years. The P-1 as a clean sheet design has unique engines and parts (expensive and vulnerable to lack of spares) and early examples have already suffered from cracking. These considerations swing the cost of fleet operations way in favor of the P-8.

        The lack of a MAD sensor in the P-8A was a USN procurement choice rather than an issue with the airframe, as the P-8I is equipped with a MAD per IN requirements.

        The P-8 is a very different platform than the P-3, and trying to compare it as if it were simply a P-3 version 2 is counterproductive in my opinion. Instead of flying low and slow while sniffing for subs directly below it with a MAD, the P-8 operates from higher altitudes with acoustic, radar, and infrared sensors that don't function very well at lower altitudes. Additionally, higher altitudes and speeds facilitate rapid deployment of GPS guided sonobuoys, and direct control of UAVs.

        The USN isn't getting rid of MAD sensors, it is just moving them to air-launched UAVs. (that looks suspiciously like a torpedo...)http://www.militaryaerospace.com/art...ing-drone.html

        The ability to directly control UAVs from a P-8 means increased flexibility based upon the mission at hand. For broad area surveillance, it can control MQ-4C Tritons, to cover huge swaths of ocean. For sub hunting specifically, it can stay up high and look for infrared or acoustic emissions, while deploying and directing several lower and slower MAD equipped drones to check suspicious areas or patrol multiple spots simultaneously. This means the P-8 never has to give up it's wide area coverage in order to dive down to check on something with a MAD sensor.

        This focus on deploying and operating UAVs is something I'm not aware of any other Maritime Aircraft undertaking.

        Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
        And, of those that could need a P-8, how many could aford it?...
        The USN isn't the only customer that likes the P-8 design. India has ordered 12 P-8I's and is planning to order 12 more, Australia has ordered 8 with an option for an additional 4, the UK has ordered 9, and there is interest in buying or leasing from Italy, Norway, and New Zealand. There is also a strong possibility of the P-8 design being modified for ground surveillance as a Joint STARS replacement for the USAF.

        As far as lifetime costs go, the 737 based platform should actually be remarkably affordable as far as military aircraft go, with easy access to extensive civilian infrastructure.
        Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 11 Jan 16,, 17:51.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
          I sure hope someone chooses to buy the P-1. It seems like an ideal replacement aircraft for the P-3, much more so then the P-8. The Japanese must take their ASW work very seriously, to spend the money to design from stratch a dedicated ASW/MPA aircraft.
          Don't forget the political & industrial sides of many of these "home grown" projects: Japan is simply trying to create it's own aerospace industry, even if it costs more. Which it usually does...

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
            Don't forget the political & industrial sides of many of these "home grown" projects: Japan is simply trying to create it's own aerospace industry, even if it costs more. Which it usually does...
            2nd.

            My impression is that the biggest reason for the existence of the P-1 is to keep Japan's aerospace industry working.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
              Why do you think so? The airframes themselves have very similar performance.

              If anything, I'd give the nod to choice of airframe to the P-8. It is based on the best selling commercial airliner in history. This means the P-8 gets immediate access to worldwide infrastructure and a huge base of spares to draw from without any additional investment. Similarly, the 737 has a long and successful track record with billions of dollars invested into it's design and engines over the years. The P-1 as a clean sheet design has unique engines and parts (expensive and vulnerable to lack of spares) and early examples have already suffered from cracking. These considerations swing the cost of fleet operations way in favor of the P-8.

              The lack of a MAD sensor in the P-8A was a USN procurement choice rather than an issue with the airframe, as the P-8I is equipped with a MAD per IN requirements.

              The P-8 is a very different platform than the P-3, and trying to compare it as if it were simply a P-3 version 2 is counterproductive in my opinion. Instead of flying low and slow while sniffing for subs directly below it with a MAD, the P-8 operates from higher altitudes with acoustic, radar, and infrared sensors that don't function very well at lower altitudes. Additionally, higher altitudes and speeds facilitate rapid deployment of GPS guided sonobuoys, and direct control of UAVs.

              The USN isn't getting rid of MAD sensors, it is just moving them to air-launched UAVs. (that looks suspiciously like a torpedo...)http://www.militaryaerospace.com/art...ing-drone.html

              The ability to directly control UAVs from a P-8 means increased flexibility based upon the mission at hand. For broad area surveillance, it can control MQ-4C Tritons, to cover huge swaths of ocean. For sub hunting specifically, it can stay up high and look for infrared or acoustic emissions, while deploying and directing several lower and slower MAD equipped drones to check suspicious areas or patrol multiple spots simultaneously. This means the P-8 never has to give up it's wide area coverage in order to dive down to check on something with a MAD sensor.

              This focus on deploying and operating UAVs is something I'm not aware of any other Maritime Aircraft undertaking.



              The USN isn't the only customer that likes the P-8 design. India has ordered 12 P-8I's and is planning to order 12 more, Australia has ordered 8 with an option for an additional 4, the UK has ordered 9, and there is interest in buying or leasing from Italy, Norway, and New Zealand. There is also a strong possibility of the P-8 design being modified for ground surveillance as a Joint STARS replacement for the USAF.

              As far as lifetime costs go, the 737 based platform should actually be remarkably affordable as far as military aircraft go, with easy access to extensive civilian infrastructure.
              You're quite correct that the P-8 which is based on the B737 Advanced has known maintenance costs and a readily available spares supply for years to come. The P-1 had cracking issues in the testing phase, it seems this has been solved and the platform is performing admirably in service now. P-1 has not been exported yet, and until very recently Japan had a self imposed non-exporting policy with regard to military hardware. All this adds up to stack the deck in the P-8's favour.

              My point was just that I see the UK needing a ASW asset more then the BAMS capability which the P-8 will undoubtedly be very good at. The P-1 is apparently cheaper as well. I don't think the UK made a bad choice, the P-8 will serve well. I've just been impressed with what the P-1 can bring to the table.

              If you look at the airframe without the mission systems, I think the P-1 is better suited to the mission than the P-8. Now individual countries have to look at the whole package and make a decision which best suits their needs, but I can look at the airframe alone.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
                Don't forget the political & industrial sides of many of these "home grown" projects: Japan is simply trying to create it's own aerospace industry, even if it costs more. Which it usually does...
                Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
                2nd.

                My impression is that the biggest reason for the existence of the P-1 is to keep Japan's aerospace industry working.
                No question. Their projects cost way more. I'm not sure why they developed the F-2 haha.

                Doesn't mean they're bad aircraft. The P-1 is the only MPA dedicated design, which you have to respect.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
                  My point was just that I see the UK needing a ASW asset more then the BAMS capability which the P-8 will undoubtedly be very good at. The P-1 is apparently cheaper as well. I don't think the UK made a bad choice, the P-8 will serve well. I've just been impressed with what the P-1 can bring to the table.
                  I'm sure a possible RAF version will be tailored to their needs. For starters, I'm willing to bet they'll want MAD as well...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
                    The P-1 is apparently cheaper as well.
                    The difference in fly-away cost (P-8 $171m vs P-1 $140m) is about $30m, but I'd argue that the lifecycle costs are significantly in favor of the 737 based platform.

                    Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
                    If you look at the airframe without the mission systems, I think the P-1 is better suited to the mission than the P-8.
                    That depends on how you intend to conduct the mission.

                    If you are looking for submarines in a P-3 or presumably a P-1, you stay up a bit to look for something suspicious, then dive down low to check it out with your MAD. Or you stay down low and patrol a confined area like a strait to see if anything tries to slip through.

                    The P-8 approaches the same mission from a different angle. It stays up high, and when it finds something suspicious it deploys one or more of these guys to go take a closer look. Click image for larger version

Name:	HAASW 14 Jan 2015.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	12.1 KB
ID:	1468050

                    The advantage in this approach is that the P-8 never has to give up wide area surveillance to investigate a potential find. It also allows the P-8 to investigate several potential areas with the potential for sub activity simultaneously. Meanwhile a P-3 or P-1 can only be in a single place at any given time.

                    The ability to have continuous wide area infrared and radar coverage while investigating multiple areas of interest with MAD in parallel seems like a pretty significant step up over having to fly over each area sequentially and losing your wider area coverage while you do it.

                    To me, the P-1 seems like a modernized P-3 with jets, while the P-8 embraces a whole new way of conducting ASW.
                    Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 11 Jan 16,, 19:00.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      CX, MRJ, and P-1 all had crack issues to airframe(even Boeing 787 wing box and Airbus A380 wing had issues) despite building wings and other commercial aircraft parts for Boeing . The Japanese will pay quite a bit for the technology and even improve upon it the Mitsubishi F-2 for instance. The Japanese are one of the best when it comes to ASW. As an island nation in WWII they lost the majority of their shipping to submarines which they didn't think would be that great a threat. The P-1 might be cheaper to acquire, but to operate and provide support probably only Coca Cola can exceed Boeing support reach. If the P-1 flies the same profile as the P-3 esp at low alt the fuel consumption is going to be horrendous, even loitering on two engines. Sweeping the wing and adding 4 straight jets, I think it would have been better to make a copy of the P-3 they built enough kits from Lockheed

                      Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
                      You're quite correct that the P-8 which is based on the B737 Advanced has known maintenance costs and a readily available spares supply for years to come. The P-1 had cracking issues in the testing phase, it seems this has been solved and the platform is performing admirably in service now. P-1 has not been exported yet, and until very recently Japan had a self imposed non-exporting policy with regard to military hardware. All this adds up to stack the deck in the P-8's favour.

                      My point was just that I see the UK needing a ASW asset more then the BAMS capability which the P-8 will undoubtedly be very good at. The P-1 is apparently cheaper as well. I don't think the UK made a bad choice, the P-8 will serve well. I've just been impressed with what the P-1 can bring to the table.

                      If you look at the airframe without the mission systems, I think the P-1 is better suited to the mission than the P-8. Now individual countries have to look at the whole package and make a decision which best suits their needs, but I can look at the airframe alone.
                      Last edited by Dazed; 12 Jan 16,, 02:00. Reason: Clarity,grammatical and spelling errors

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
                        To me, the P-1 seems like a modernized P-3 with jets, while the P-8 embraces a whole new way of conducting ASW.
                        I would agree with you. In ten years, when the P-8 is working with:

                        -High Altitude ASW (HAASW) Unmanned Targeting Air System (UTAS)
                        -High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon Capability (HAAWC) Air Launch Accessory (ALA)
                        -Northrop Grumman RQ-4N Triton Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) large UAV

                        It will be interesting to see how successful this next generation ASW concept is.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Here's an interesting development in ASW operations.

                          http://60abc.com/us-navys-solar-dron...ands-on-water/

                          Apparently the Navy is acquiring solar powered quadcopter sonobuoys. Once deployed they can stay active almost indefinitely due to solar power keeping their batteries topped off. They can fly for at least an hour a day to reposition themselves, and are designed to takeoff and land on the ocean.

                          A sensor net that can be deployed by submarines or maritime patrol aircraft is nothing new, but one that doesn't have a lifetime limited by battery capacity and with the ability to swiftly reposition itself is certainly going to be quite the boon. That should allow both for redeploying an existing sensor net, and for recovering the sonobuoys themselves for reuse.
                          Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 08 Apr 16,, 16:18.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X