Slug71 wrote:

I don't think there's much contention for the P-8A anyway TBH.

Nothing like some sable rattling by Putin to scare them into moving the timeline to the left and get a capable plane ASAP.
Although Germany and France don't have the capability gap like the British.

bt

Kiwirob wrote:

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.

Or they could do that smart thing and buy the already existing built for purpose P1 and add local content.

In the past apparently the electronic suites where the ones moved around between different aircraft types. Probably various packages could be bought from the P1, P7, R1 Sentinel to reduce costs, risk and improve inter operability, some be developed new.

Ozair wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Looks good keesje! I've wondered for some time why Airbus hasn't launched a MPA version of the A320/321 to compete with the P-8.

There have been many attempts over the years but nothing has come to fruition, as this article states the requirement has been around as far back as 2002, https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/01/future-maritime-patrol-part-3-dedicated-long-range-aircraft-p3-p1-atl-319/

The A319 MPA was offered to both Australia and India a number of years ago but lost to the P-8. The A320 has also been suggested as a AEW&C platform and Airbus made several models that were displayed at defence shows. Some info from a thread keesje created 9 years ago, viewtopic.php?t=1022815

My question? Does Airbus own the technology to develop an airplane to compete with the P-8A?? Did they to compete with the P-3C??
Just having an airframe is one thing,, but having the knowledge to match the capability is a totally different thing. They could partner with Lockheed or L3. but they'd be buying "off the shelf" Equipment designs that may or May NOT be owned by DARPA. thus unavailable to them. The British and the Germans though have built and operated their own unique designs and I'm sure could equip any Airbus airframe with modifications. How long did Boeing develop their airplane??
I remember Boeing having an ASW-707 parked on the Tarmac at NAS Moffett Field, CA while I served in the USN with VP-47 flying the P3-C. So??
They've been at this for a damn long time, as that was around 1975 that I first saw that airplane.

strfyr51 wrote:

My question? Does Airbus own the technology to develop an airplane to compete with the P-8A?? Did they to compete with the P-3C??
Just having an airframe is one thing,, but having the knowledge to match the capability is a totally different thing. They could partner with Lockheed or L3. but they'd be buying "off the shelf" Equipment designs that may or May NOT be owned by DARPA. thus unavailable to them. The British and the Germans though have built and operated their own unique designs and I'm sure could equip any Airbus airframe with modifications. How long did Boeing develop their airplane??
I remember Boeing having an ASW-707 parked on the Tarmac at NAS Moffett Field, CA while I served in the USN with VP-47 flying the P3-C. So??
They've been at this for a damn long time, as that was around 1975 that I first saw that airplane.

There is more than enough tech and knowledge available with European Defence Contractors to develop and build an ASW system for an A320 MPA with several existing systems already in service.

For example the below is used by the US, UK, France, Norway and Sweden.
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwid ... ne-systems

The Italians have received new ATR-72 that are designed for MPA operations but without ASW which could be added later is required.
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2016/12 ... -aircraft/

So plenty of tech and expertise in Europe and no reason they couldn’t develop a system as advanced as the P-8, the issue just comes down to cost and time. Given Germany and France have demonstrated with the A400M, Rafale, Eurofighter and now with the new European Fighter they are willing to spend vast amounts of cash to preserve domestic industries I don't see why a joint MPA will be any different.

I suspect what they are doing is just set up one organization to act as an integrator. They would select the A320 as a baseline aircraft. All the Mission System suite will be competitively bid if competition exists. Otherwise they will probably purchase existing system from the various electronics company. If commonality with the P-8A systems is desired, I doubt that US company will be prevented from providing those systems for this project.

bt

If you want commonality, then you can buy the P-8.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ubmarines/

In service, already developed, capable of accepting new hardware. That saves everyone a bundle of money.

CX747 wrote:

If you want commonality, then you can buy the P-8.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ubmarines/

In service, already developed, capable of accepting new hardware. That saves everyone a bundle of money.

But it doesn't give jobs to Europeans and is based on an arguably inferior aircraft to the A320NEO.

Kiwirob wrote:

But it doesn't give jobs to Europeans and is based on an arguably inferior aircraft to the A320NEO.

If they want to create jobs, take the money you save from avoiding the development cost and feed it into some non-military related job creation program. It would probably benefit you more. But that is a political calculation that we are not qualified to make

bt

There is also the SC-130J, Lockheed's newer entry into the MPA realm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjFijMCgh24

BawliBooch wrote:

pygmalion wrote:

Not that it shouldn't be looked at. Airbus Military is a bit short on cash though with the latest A400M charges.

Isnt the A400M saga over? Atleast where Airbus financials are concerned?

Isnt the European taxpayer is footing the bill for that screwup?

t

Good question!

Anybody know what was actually agreed?

(I thought that the parties have mostly "agreed to agree").



cheers

tommy1808 wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

You can't have sensor operators staring at the same screen for hours on end and expect that sensor to be 'optimized' - mental and visual fatigue becomes a major factor. You need to provide enough coverage with the crew size to allow people to have breaks so they can mentally reset..

We live in the times of deep learning, it is unlikely that a human operator can beat such a system. Those beat us in everything else someone took the time to train them.

So at some point the operator will have his Attention guided and doesn´t have to focus all the time. There is still lots of potential in concentration aids....

Quality control system are there for quite a while now.

best regards




So interesting.


Please post a lot more.

cheers

Ozair wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

It makes you wonder what is the point in an MPA doesn’t it.

I don’t think there is much doubt about the purpose of an MPA.

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).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_patrol_aircraft

Within the search and rescue context we can’t expect the MPA to find something when, as it subsequently became clear, wasn’t actually there in the first place…

!

A mere detail.

No silly quibbles please!




cheers

flipdewaf wrote:

Maybe the European governments should fund a new wing that can hold more fuel so that it can increase it's loiter time at an increased weight?

Fred

NOT OK.!


I've dredged thru 2 months of stuff to see if anyone answered this ...

Very naughty!

I can see what you are up to.

You know the expression .. "wash your mouth out with soap!"?



cheers

brindabella wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Maybe the European governments should fund a new wing that can hold more fuel so that it can increase it's loiter time at an increased weight?

Fred

NOT OK.!


I've dredged thru 2 months of stuff to see if anyone answered this ...

Very naughty!

I can see what you are up to.

You know the expression .. "wash your mouth out with soap!"?



cheers

Haha, it took so long for a bite I’d almost forgotten about it.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It looks like there may be some evidence that the Airbus A319 based MPA is actually cheaper than the Boeing P-8:

https://www.janes.com/article/82243/ind ... i-aircraft

In a report tabled in parliament on 7 August, the CAG revealed that the MoD had “incorrectly” declared Boeing’s financial bid for the P-8Is to be lower than that of Spain’s EADS CASA, which had also had its Airbus A319 maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) shortlisted for acquisition following trials in 2008–09.

The CAG claimed that the MoD had “enhanced” EADS CASA’s bid by including its 20-year support package in the company’s overall offer, but “ignored” this element in Boeing’s offer.

Interesting, given that the P-8 was already developed, and the A319MPA wasn't...

Or it is just the Indian military tracking true to form and looking to renegotiate a contract to get a better deal - if not for the country, then at least for the procurers.

The project is named A320M3 now.

keesje wrote:

The project is named A320M3 now.

Good platform for a AWACS/JSTARS too.

kanban wrote:

My first thought was Airbus must see the losses for the A400 ending and need another hole to lose money in.

Somewhat off-base there. A logical line of thinking would be that Airbus, having had success in the A330 MRTT programme, is looking to expand their military portfolio by doing yet another conversion of a highly successful and well tested commercial airliner into a military version. I don't expect them to dig a hole for this, at least not to the tune of losing say $3 billion to get the conversion right.



Didn't see this posted anywhere in this thread but I'll just put it in now.

Airbus evaluates an A320neo multi-mission version

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faFxUoGt2WU

VSMUT wrote:

It looks like there may be some evidence that the Airbus A319 based MPA is actually cheaper than the Boeing P-8:

The evidence is base on the bids only. As many of us here have seen being a low bidder does not necessarily means the least expensive contract. If true, while the P-8I may become a higher bid with the support contract (We were just as curious on why the India Navy did not want the support contract up front.), the development that was done for the P-8A have reduce the risk of execution for the P-8I significantly. I do not recall the P-8I's being delivered late (or significantly late). You can not be assured the same for the A319 based aircraft.

Considering that the P-8I was built similar to the P-8A where the mission system provision was already built into the green aircraft, which is the benefit of tagging on to the 117 quantity order of the P-8A. Can we say that the A319 MMA would be able to do the same for 8 frames? The A319 MMA would have to be a post production mod (chop and patch) otherwise the non-recuring cost for in-line production would go through the roof.

There is one benefit of a post production mod though. The mod could be done in India, thus providing significant off-sets. But having had the hind sight of a few years of working with India aerospace industry, I would predict that any A319 MMA being mod in India 8 years ago would have faced significant delays due to the learning curve. If mod could begin today, I would be more confident, but 8 years ago? Not so confident . . .

bt

Looks like with the number of frames involved, the A320 looks more and more like a good possibility

https://www.janes.com/article/77947/nat ... aft-effort.

The two nations join France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Turkey in the multinational effort to develop a replacement for many of the alliance’s ageing maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) aircraft that will be nearing the end of their service lives in the coming years.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Looks like with the number of frames involved, the A320 looks more and more like a good possibility

https://www.janes.com/article/77947/nat ... aft-effort.

The two nations join France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Turkey in the multinational effort to develop a replacement for many of the alliance’s ageing maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) aircraft that will be nearing the end of their service lives in the coming years.

bt

With Airbus, Germany, France & Canada involved some further, maybe more efficient options could come under consideration. Such as e.g. an A220 MPA or even a decicated purpose designed platform. An MPA is a bit expensive to fly around people & goods too.


Concept Steve Daly, Stephen Priestly images

keesje wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Looks like with the number of frames involved, the A320 looks more and more like a good possibility

https://www.janes.com/article/77947/nat ... aft-effort.

The two nations join France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Turkey in the multinational effort to develop a replacement for many of the alliance’s ageing maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) aircraft that will be nearing the end of their service lives in the coming years.

bt

With Canada involved some further, maybe more efficient options could come under consideration, such as an A220 MPA.


Concept Steve Daly, Stephen Priestly images

Considering the previous proposal was a stretched A319,and now a A320, a A220 is probably too small.

Having watched the video posted above, why would there be a separate SIGINT variant? Wouldn't it make more sense to include those capabilities into the MPA and AEW&C variants?

Given the latest international developments, taking steps toward solutions with no US content would seem like an understandable choice by the EU and other countries, even if the choice carries some financial costs.

IADFCO wrote:

Given the latest international developments, taking steps toward solutions with no US content would seem like an understandable choice by the EU and other countries, even if the choice carries some financial costs.

Do you mean mission specific equipment or in general? I guess that the equipment could be possible, but the A320 itself has a lot of American components which could not easily be replaced. But perhaps it would be possible.

Slug71 wrote:

Having watched the video posted above, why would there be a separate SIGINT variant? Wouldn't it make more sense to include those capabilities into the MPA and AEW&C variants?

No. That just increases cost of integrating all the respective systems into the one airframe. It would be cheaper and likely less risky to install SIGINT related systems into the same airframe but with no conflicting systems.

Slug71 wrote:

Considering the previous proposal was a stretched A319,and now a A320, a A220 is probably too small.

It seems the A319MPA was a bit oversized. Now adding transport capability is maybe a solution for a problem that can be avoided..

keesje wrote:

It seems the A319MPA was a bit oversized.

Not sure how it is over there, but seems to me in the US if you give them a bigger airplane, they will find a way to fill it

bt

Not sure if that was discussed before but Japan is considering joining France and Germany in developing the new maritime surveillance / anti-submarine aircraft by selling tech from their P-1.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Japan- ... and-France

Japan has been pretty active in Europe in this regard recently. They and Germany also tentatively agreed to work together more closely in tank development though in this case they're interested in purchasing tech from Germany.

vr773 wrote:

Not sure if that was discussed before but Japan is considering joining France and Germany in developing the new maritime surveillance / anti-submarine aircraft by selling tech from their P-1.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Japan- ... and-France

Japan has been pretty active in Europe in this regard recently. They and Germany also tentatively agreed to work together more closely in tank development though in this case they're interested in purchasing tech from Germany.

I mean when you have a chance to turn one overpriced low production number project into two overpriced low production number projects you just have to sign right up don’t you?

keesje wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Considering the previous proposal was a stretched A319,and now a A320, a A220 is probably too small.

It seems the A319MPA was a bit oversized. Now adding transport capability is maybe a solution for a problem that can be avoided..

Would the baseline not be a P-3? In comparison, the P-3 is about the same size as an A220-100 if you go with an A220-300 you have more than enough room and a significantly lighter frame than the A320 family.

The problem many times when several nations try to get together for a large joint project, is that different goals arise and either some countries drop out or the end result is goldplated to try to please everyone. Think of NATO efforts to build common frigates, transport and refueling planes, helicopters or even assault rifles.

cumulushumilis wrote:

keesje wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Considering the previous proposal was a stretched A319,and now a A320, a A220 is probably too small.

It seems the A319MPA was a bit oversized. Now adding transport capability is maybe a solution for a problem that can be avoided..

Would the baseline not be a P-3? In comparison, the P-3 is about the same size as an A220-100 if you go with an A220-300 you have more than enough room and a significantly lighter frame than the A320 family.

I actually am a little surprised one of the A220 variants isn't the frame of choice. My only guess is that the study/design was done prior to the A220 becoming a Airbus product. But the A320 is also "more European". On the flipside, the A220 could gain US orders.

No doubt politics would be at play though.

keesje wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Considering the previous proposal was a stretched A319,and now a A320, a A220 is probably too small.

It seems the A319MPA was a bit oversized. Now adding transport capability is maybe a solution for a problem that can be avoided..

I realized after I posted that, that the A220 is actually longer than the A319 and A320. So my bad on the size statement.
See my comment above in regards to the A220.

I have to wonder if the weapons bay size could be a slight complication? Doesn't look like very much flat room forward and aft of the wing box. Probably why the A319 was stretched?
Then again, the A223 is slightly longer than the A320, and they squeezed one into the A320 MPA design.

Hopefully it would have a boom receptacle instead of the drogue receiver though.

johns624 wrote:

The problem many times when several nations try to get together for a large joint project, is that different goals arise and either some countries drop out or the end result is goldplated to try to please everyone. Think of NATO efforts to build common frigates, transport and refueling planes, helicopters or even assault rifles.

I would hope that by now, they have learned from the NH90, and A400m. I think any future joint project will have a stricter build standard and be run more like the F-35 is.
Modern technology makes design, integration, and multitasking much simpler though. And it's a very mission specific aircraft, which should make things easier too. Should...

Erebus wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

I actually am a little surprised one of the A220 variants isn't the frame of choice.

Won't range/endurance be a factor under consideration?

Range between the A223 and A320NEO appears very similar. I'm sure they'll be equipped for inflight refueling too.

Slug71 wrote:

I actually am a little surprised one of the A220 variants isn't the frame of choice.

Won't range/endurance be a factor under consideration?

I think they'll go for an A320 series MPA. The A220 series is too new, doesn't have the spare parts or support functions that the A320 series has.

vr773 wrote:

Not sure if that was discussed before but Japan is considering joining France and Germany in developing the new maritime surveillance / anti-submarine aircraft by selling tech from their P-1.

Specifically with respect to the acoustic system, NATO will already be operating the system from Boeing (Norway, US and UK) on the P-8A. Would they want to have optimal compatibility by sticking with that system? Which would mean putting Boeing acoustic hardware on an Airbus plane?


bt

A reason for the A320 as base platform iso A319 could be it creates more space for belly fuel tanks next to a weapons bay.

http://training.egyptair.com/Maintenanc ... es/dim.jpg

keesje wrote:

A reason for the A320 as base platform iso A319 could be it creates more space for belly fuel tanks next to a weapons bay.

http://training.egyptair.com/Maintenanc ... es/dim.jpg

More than likely. IIRC, the A319 MPA would have been stretched over 2m for the MPA variant. Leaving it roughly 1.5m shorter than the A320.

JetBuddy wrote:

I think they'll go for an A320 series MPA. The A220 series is too new, doesn't have the spare parts or support functions that the A320 series has.

I hate to say it but I think a big reason the A320 is the only real choice is France and Germany....

Tugg

bigjku wrote:

I mean when you have a chance to turn one overpriced low production number project into two overpriced low production number projects you just have to sign right up don’t you?

Tugger wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

I think they'll go for an A320 series MPA. The A220 series is too new, doesn't have the spare parts or support functions that the A320 series has.

I hate to say it but I think a big reason the A320 is the only real choice is France and Germany....

Tugg

Agreed.

What's the chances the UK cancel their P-8s for this? Since they want local industry to benefit from the AWACS replacement. Airbus would be the next logical choice with the AEW&C variant.(?)

Slug71 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

I think they'll go for an A320 series MPA. The A220 series is too new, doesn't have the spare parts or support functions that the A320 series has.

I hate to say it but I think a big reason the A320 is the only real choice is France and Germany....

Tugg

Agreed.

What's the chances the UK cancel their P-8s for this? Since they want local industry to benefit from the AWACS replacement. Airbus would be the next logical choice with the AEW&C variant.(?)

Zero chance...

Slug71 wrote:

What's the chances the UK cancel their P-8s for this?

Not zero, but unlikely, as money have changed hands. The first UK air frame have already been allocated as part of the US government lot 8 buy.

bt

Yeh in that case, theres about no chance.

If the South African government had their house in order, the SAAF should have been in on this. They really need new MPAs.
But the list is a lot longer than that. And the defense budget has been cut to a joke.

Slug71 wrote:

If the South African government had their house in order, the SAAF should have been in on this. They really need new MPAs.
But the list is a lot longer than that. And the defense budget has been cut to a joke.

If South Africa wanted an MPA, the C-295 is a far better option. Cheaper to acquire and operate and has the blend of capabilities South Africa needs. There is no other submarine operator in Africa so an MPA that removed that sub hunter requirement and focused on surface search, rescue and ISR is more than sufficient.

South Africa no longer has a blue water navy and the military needs to focus on and acquire equipment that will support their actual operational use case, domestic and African continental operations, and not on niche missions that are frankly now beyond them.

Airbus is offering a family concept, I think in the end a few European Airforces will decide how it will look.



Interesting would be to see if they are able to give it real long range / loiter. Like the P-3C could hang out there for 15+ hrs if rquired, shutting down one or two engines. I wonder if P-8 / A320 MPA can/could do that.

P.S. (the loiter thing I mean )

Maybe move over some A321LR fuel tanks, engines, wings and structural strenghtening..

Ozair wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

If the South African government had their house in order, the SAAF should have been in on this. They really need new MPAs.
But the list is a lot longer than that. And the defense budget has been cut to a joke.

If South Africa wanted an MPA, the C-295 is a far better option. Cheaper to acquire and operate and has the blend of capabilities South Africa needs. There is no other submarine operator in Africa so an MPA that removed that sub hunter requirement and focused on surface search, rescue and ISR is more than sufficient.

South Africa no longer has a blue water navy and the military needs to focus on and acquire equipment that will support their actual operational use case, domestic and African continental operations, and not on niche missions that are frankly now beyond them.

Depends on what the SAR area for South Africa is. That was one of the big considerations for NZ and the P-8 was that NZ has a massive chunk of the South Pacific to do SAR in by international agreement. South Africa may also have a big chunk of ocean to cover by international agreement so may need to have something with a hefty range.

keesje wrote:

Airbus is offering a family concept, I think in the end a few European Airforces will decide how it will look.



Interesting would be to see if they are able to give it real long range / loiter. Like the P-3C could hang out there for 15+ hrs if rquired, shutting down one or two engines. I wonder if P-8 / A320 MPA can/could do that.

P.S. (the loiter thing I mean )

Maybe move over some A321LR fuel tanks, engines, wings and structural strenghtening..

My understanding is that the P-8 does not have the raw loiter time of the P-3 nor does it have the operational option of shutting down an engine to extend range. However unlike the P-3 the P-8 has a much faster transit speed to the search area so can get to a contact or SAR area much faster. An A320 would have the same capability.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Depends on what the SAR area for South Africa is. That was one of the big considerations for NZ and the P-8 was that NZ has a massive chunk of the South Pacific to do SAR in by international agreement. South Africa may also have a big chunk of ocean to cover by international agreement so may need to have something with a hefty range.

Their SAR region is available here, https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/CG-5 ... egions.pdf

Reality though is irrespective of how big the region is, they aren't doing it today. The current SAAF asset for martime patrol are C-47TPs of which they may have a couple that are airworthy. This article gives a very good idea of where the state of the 70 year old fleet is at, https://www.africandefence.net/why-the- ... t-matters/

Ozair wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Depends on what the SAR area for South Africa is. That was one of the big considerations for NZ and the P-8 was that NZ has a massive chunk of the South Pacific to do SAR in by international agreement. South Africa may also have a big chunk of ocean to cover by international agreement so may need to have something with a hefty range.

Their SAR region is available here, https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/CG-5 ... egions.pdf

Reality though is irrespective of how big the region is, they aren't doing it today. The current SAAF asset for martime patrol are C-47TPs of which they may have a couple that are airworthy. This article gives a very good idea of where the state of the 70 year old fleet is at, https://www.africandefence.net/why-the- ... t-matters/

Damn. Yeah, in that case any of the current MPAs is an improvement irrespective of range.