Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Kawasaki P1  
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4643 posts, RR: 19
Posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 7624 times:

So the Japanese develop, by themselves what appears to be a superb replacement for the P3 and a rather unique Aircraft.


A four engine design with a maximum take off weight similar to a B727.


Good for them, but why the total lack of interest in this design from other countries ?


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1765 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7583 times:

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
Good for them, but why the total lack of interest in this design from other countries ?

The Japanese don't export their military hardware.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7499 times:

Very few nations are really buying Maritime Patrol Aircraft right now, particularly new ones. Those that are are doing so on the cheap either with P-3 reconditions or they are buying modular kits to stick in transport aircraft and then pretending those are MPA's.

For those that are buying new MPA's the P-8 is simply a better bet. It is a bit cheaper ($200 million vs $270 million in flyaway cost). The airframe has thousands of examples worldwide and a huge spares base to draw from. Performance wise they give you almost exactly the same thing but the 737 based airframe is probably seen as lower risk. Early P-1's have already had some cracking. It is probably nothing but if you are looking to drop a lot of money you are comparing a new airframe with no track record that uses unique engines to one of the most flown airframe and engine combinations in world history. One is more predictable than the other.

There is the additional benefit for nations like Australia that the P-8 shares a fair deal in common with their other militarized 737's. It just makes things simpler and I think that will be its other big selling point (the first being the thousands of 737's already out there). The 737 is likely to be the follow on platform for lots of 707 based electronic warfare platforms in the US so if you want an ELINT aircraft of an AWACS aircraft it makes sense to combine that with the P-8 provided you also want an MPA.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 867 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7484 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 1):
The Japanese don't export their military hardware.

I am not sure if don't or can't is the right word? The Japanese constitution apparently denies them the ability to export military weapons or systems.

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
Good for them, but why the total lack of interest in this design from other countries ?

The test case is the new Japanese float-plane, the SU-2. The Japanese and the Indians have apparently reached agreement on its purchase, http://www.hindustantimes.com/ViewsS...-s-blessings/Article1-1068447.aspx


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 7417 times:

I would say cant is the right word.

The only time I have heard of a forgiven air force flying Japanese equipment that wasn't WWII captures is the two YS-11's the Turkish Airforce uses as Navaid check aircraft.

But I don't think they where bought new from NAMC.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 7412 times:

Not only are they seriously restricted in exporting military products, the Japanese Defence Forces rather like the specialised, built for them and no one else products that often follow from it.
Of course there is a high financial cost to this, which they seem to accept.

It's rather a back to the future thing, these highly specialised, often uniquely configured aircraft.

The other aspect to paying this cost is that it preserves the Japanese design and industrial base, beyond just licence building foreign types. They do a lot of that too of course but again, they seem to think it worthwhile.


User currently offlinebritjap From Japan, joined Aug 2006, 280 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7315 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 3):
I am not sure if don't or can't is the right word? The Japanese constitution apparently denies them the ability to export military weapons or systems.
Quoting L-188 (Reply 4):
I would say cant is the right word.

Not quite.

"Don't" is indeed the right word. The constitution does not prohibit arms exports. It does not make any explicit judgement on the issue. Technically, I believe it is not even illegal to export arms as there is no law to prevent this. It is however Japanese government policy not to allow arms exports, and so it is in all practicality, *illegal*. The government (ie. METI) would come down hard on any company that flouts this policy.

Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
Japanese Defence Forces rather like the specialised, built for them and no one else products

Another key point is that in years gone by it was often not even possible to purchase equipment from overseas as sending specifications/requirements to foreign suppliers in the form of RFQs etc would be classified as an arms export. So whenever a suitable product was not commercially available off the shelf, that meant designing and developing a domestic solution.

Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
The other aspect to paying this cost is that it preserves the Japanese design and industrial base

   This is the primary driver for such programmes.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 3):
The test case is the new Japanese float-plane, the SU-2. The Japanese and the Indians have apparently reached agreement on its purchase, http://www.hindustantimes.com/ViewsS....aspx

Things are slowly changing. The US-2 deal with India has been in the works for some years now. It is nice to see some movement on this. I for one hope that this deal eventually gets done.


User currently offlinedlednicer From United States of America, joined May 2005, 544 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7256 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Quoting L-188 (Reply 4):
The only time I have heard of a forgiven air force flying Japanese equipment that wasn't WWII captures is the two YS-11's the Turkish Airforce uses as Navaid check aircraft.

Also, the Republic of China (Taiwan) Air Force was supplied with some Mitsubishi-built Lockheed F-104J Starfighters:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © S.L. Tsai
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © S.L. Tsai



User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4643 posts, RR: 19
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7214 times:

Good info but it is a fascinating Aircraft.


I wonder if, like the Nimrod and P3 it is designed to shut down two engines during long patrols for greater endurance.


Incidentally what kind of engines are they ?



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1765 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7160 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 8):
Incidentally what kind of engines are they ?

A Japanese designed engine, the IHI F7. IHI has a lot of experience license building and building parts for jet engines and gas turbines, and they have worked with Rolls Royce and GE on a variety of engines. I believe this is their first indigenous engine, though they had a lot of help from GE on various components.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4003 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7111 times:

Is the P-1 a fully new aircraft design or is it based on another airframe? Wikipedia doesn't say, but surely the costs would be prohibitive for Japan to design a completely new airframe for this job?

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1765 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7104 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 10):
Is the P-1 a fully new aircraft design or is it based on another airframe?

All new design, but shares some development resources with the Kawasaki C-2.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 867 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7102 times:

Quoting britjap (Reply 6):
Not quite.

Thanks for the info.

Quoting moo (Reply 10):
Is the P-1 a fully new aircraft design or is it based on another airframe? Wikipedia doesn't say, but surely the costs would be prohibitive for Japan to design a completely new airframe for this job?

Japan and prohibitive costs go very well together. They paid twice the value of an F-16 to domestically produce the F-2.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2155 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7083 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 10):
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 11):

One thing about new design is that you have a better shot at configuring the internal layout the way you wanted. With a pre-existing airframe, you have less flexibility.

Any photos of the interior configuration?

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4003 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7067 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 13):

Yes,that might be true, but surely it can't be worth it if you are only looking at a few dozen airframes?


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 7061 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 8):
I wonder if, like the Nimrod and P3 it is designed to shut down two engines during long patrols for greater endurance.

This is a fairly simple and complicated question all at once. The technical answer is going to be yes. Even a 2 engine aircraft can fly around on one engine. The question is if that can really increase endurance and that depends a lot on flight profile. Big turbofan engines don't do it as well as the old prop-engines did.

I think that what you will see, since the P-1 and P-8 will share a lot of warfare systems, is that they will generally operate at high altitude almost exclusively where they can most efficiently cruise and reduce airframe stress. This gives the best coverage perspective for their radars (important if you are hunting SSK's that occasionally have to snort) and with the planned modifications to torpedoes and buoys to operate efficiently from cruise altitudes should let them cover more area in a given amount of time.

About the only thing you lose at altitude is your MAD capability and I honestly am not sure MAD has a ton of utility going forward for a few reasons. First there are a lot of measures one can take to minimize a magnetic signature and these seem to be moving towards systems installed on each submarine. At depth MAD is generally not going to work even without these measures. Second there is renewed talk of SAM's being able to be fired from subs.

http://www.diehl.com/fileadmin/diehl...user_upload/flyer/IDAS_07_2008.pdf

I don't really have a ton of faith in those systems being all that practical but I do know that flying low will bring them into play.

At cruise altitude I think that you would probably see a lot less benefit from operating with engines shut down than you do at lower altitude. I think the P-1 can certainly do it, but I don't think it will be really common.


User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7555 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 6986 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 3):

I am not sure if don't or can't is the right word? The Japanese constitution apparently denies them the ability to export military weapons or systems.

That's a myth. The ban was instigated in 1967 and tightened up in 1976, but was not constitutional, it was self imposed, in 2011 the Japanese dropped the ban.

Here's a nice article about it.
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7555 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 6986 times:

Ok something went wrong in my post above, here's the article.

User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1366 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6954 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
The other aspect to paying this cost is that it preserves the Japanese design and industrial base, beyond just licence building foreign types. They do a lot of that too of course but again, they seem to think it worthwhile.

Hearing that the engines are indigenous to Japan leads me to believe that this is a really key factor. Although doesn't the XC-2 use CF-6s?


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4643 posts, RR: 19
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6626 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 15):

This is a fairly simple and complicated question all at once. The technical answer is going to be yes. Even a 2 engine aircraft can fly around on one engine. The question is if that can really increase endurance and that depends a lot on flight profile. Big turbofan engines don't do it as well as the old prop-engines did.

I understand the theory, was trying to find out if anyone really knew !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6397 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 18):
Hearing that the engines are indigenous to Japan leads me to believe that this is a really key factor. Although doesn't the XC-2 use CF-6s?

Japan has been involved in various engine programs, in the mid sized civil turbofan range, going right back to work with Rolls Royce 30 years ago. Leading to some work on production engines in collaborative programs.
It might be that the P1's engines are a means at using that experience on an indigenous engine.

Yes, the C.2 has CF-6's.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7710 posts, RR: 21
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6393 times:

One thing's for sure - that's one cool-looking aircraft. Four engines on a small airframe is always going to look tremendous.


✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineaaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8181 posts, RR: 26
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6162 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 8):
Good info but it is a fascinating Aircraft.

Agreed. It was developed at Kawasaki Heavy's aerospace R&D works at the Gifu Air Base, about an hour north of here (Nagoya). You should try to come out here in late November when that base has their annual JASDF Air Show and Open House - typically the entire Kawasaki flight line is opened to the public with the requisite aerial performances.

http://www.milavia.net/airshows/calendar/showdates-2013-world-JP.html


Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 9):
A Japanese designed engine, the IHI F7. IHI has a lot of experience license building and building parts for jet engines and gas turbines, and they have worked with Rolls Royce and GE on a variety of engines. I believe this is their first indigenous engine, though they had a lot of help from GE on various components.

To my knowledge, this is the first domestically produced turbofan of this size and design in Japan.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineaaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8181 posts, RR: 26
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6159 times:

Incidentally, by searching in Japanese I was also able to find these:

This is the common cockpit design for both the P-1 and C-2:



And this page has several photos of the prototype P-1 delivery ceremony:

http://www1a.biglobe.ne.jp/mediaeye/index/13-0326_news.html



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2155 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6150 times:

Quoting aaron747 (Reply 23):

Couple of observation.

Looks like the cockpit crew has larger windows than the P-8 (one benefit of building from scratch).
There are more observation windows on the P1, but the P-8 has the largest observation window.

The sonobuoy launchers are the cluster type where as the P-8 have the rotary launcher.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8181 posts, RR: 26
Reply 25, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5850 times:

News story out of this week about JMSDF grounding of the P-1 over the last month as investigations continue into reliability issues with the IHI engines.

http://newsonjapan.com/html/newsdesk/article/103221.php



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineBigjKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 11
Reply 26, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5774 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 25):
News story out of this week about JMSDF grounding of the P-1 over the last month as investigations continue into reliability issues with the IHI engines.

This was/is the big risk with the program. The main thing you want from a MPA in my view is dispatch reliability and reasonable operating cost. Hope they sort the engines out because it will be a good platform but that is why I have been onboard with the 737 MPA solution for the US for a while now. Whatever minor operational drawbacks a 2 jet engine MPA has it seems like a small trade for having very high rates of dispatch and an large and affordable spare pool to draw from.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2155 posts, RR: 4
Reply 27, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5761 times:

Quoting BigjKU (Reply 26):

The P-8 may have it's own dispatch reliability issues. But it will not come from the engines. Those 737 CFM's have proven themselves through all the years of commercial service.   

Also, Boeing is trying to pitch the P-8 to Japan in case the P-1 program falters.

bt

[Edited 2013-06-21 09:35:09]


Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineBigjKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 11
Reply 28, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5729 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 27):
The P-8 may have it's own dispatch reliability issues. But it will not come from the engines. Those 737 CFM's have proven themselves through all the years of commercial service.

Yeah, that is kind of what I am getting at. A lot of spares will be on hand just about anywhere in the world. Not for the mission systems but basic stuff for the airframe to get by with should be easy to scrounge up. If you for example wanted to deploy a squadron to some airport in East Africa it is likely that that place operates some 737's. Mission systems are going to fail from time to time but if I have an airframe that is flyable better than 90% of the time as an airplane I am going to be pretty happy.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic The Kawasaki P1
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Military Will Fly Again At Reno! posted Fri May 31 2013 07:45:21 by Aeronautician
Navy P8 In The Tampa / Clearwater Area posted Thu May 16 2013 22:32:15 by Max Q
The Commemorative Air Force Will Move From TX posted Wed May 15 2013 16:03:45 by Aeronautician
End Of The Line For The Mig-21... posted Tue May 7 2013 07:57:30 by alberchico
Less Rafale But Reaper For The French Forces posted Mon Apr 29 2013 06:16:16 by Alsatian
What Is The Next Generation Strategic Airlifter? posted Tue Apr 16 2013 16:33:35 by TWA772LR
The Bridges At Toko-Ri------The Real Story posted Thu Apr 11 2013 19:18:53 by Geezer
Mysterious AAM Used By The Croatian AF posted Tue Apr 9 2013 07:36:05 by mig21umd
Two P-51's With The Same SN posted Fri Apr 5 2013 12:17:51 by g38
When Did The Fighting Falcon Turn Into A Viper? posted Sat Mar 23 2013 01:40:49 by a380heavy

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format