bikerthai wrote:

Not sure if routine harbor patrol is the responsibility of NATO.

Anyway, I believe Norway has underwater sensors in their waterways. That was how they detected the sardines that they thought were Russian subs.

The US is developing a variety of underwater UAV and it is part of NATO. But I get your point. That tech is not yet mature.

bt

We are not taking about harbour patrol, we are talking about the North Sea or the Baltic Sea, the Irish Sea, the channel, the Bay of Biscay, and probably the whole Med. all those areas which need to be crossed by shipping to reach ports in Europe and where a larger number of smaller planes would offer more capability than a small number of larger planes, if you look at the available fleets in NATO. NATO has/will have plenty P-8s to patrol around Greenland or Iceland, but nearly no small MPAs to patrol the North Sea and the Baltic. (except the small Polish An-28s) And if you use P-8s for the mission, you can not use them around Greenland or Iceland, so in the end it is a zero sum game if you look at capabilities.

seahawk wrote:

We are not taking about harbour patrol, we are talking about the North Sea or the Baltic Sea, the Irish Sea, the channel, the Bay of Biscay, and probably the whole Med.

OK let's take harbor patrol and any semi-closed water body of water out of the equation. Those bodies can be monitored by close to shore systems like small UAV and helicopters and what ever small MMA currently exists.

That leaves the North Sea, and North Atlantic, there will be enough long range MMA monitor Russian subs with the US, UK and Norwegian P-8A.

Most of the commercial shipping traffic will be traversing the Atlantic. You wouldn't use the P-8A or even smaller MMA for monitoring those. You use satellites. And besides, don't think Germany will be sending any MMA there anyway.

That leaves the Med which I will agree that there is a need for both small and large MMA.

Then it comes to affordability. If a country like Germany, whose economy is strong, chose to go the small route, then who is left in NATO to go the the large route?

bt

Portugal, Norway, the UK and Greece in the EU/Europe have orders/operate the P-8. I’m not sure why it is so widely presumed US resources will be afforded/dedicated to Europe in the future, particularly 10+ years out. (Please don’t bring Israel again into the discussion bikerthai, as that is just a canard you can take to another forum.) Power projection? Why do we need to project ‘power’ (via ASW surveillance?) from the US into the Mediterranean/North Sea/Baltic seas in 2040? The support for doing so is going to continue to drop moving forward.

Europe (and Germany in particular) needs to behave, plan for, and spend on her defense as an adult in the room, not plan to get indefinite assistance from the US. Build your own, or buy the available P-8, whatever.

texl1649 wrote:

Portugal, Norway, the UK and Greece in

Portugal and Greece? Any confirmation that they will be ordering some P-8? That would be nice news.

I will not bring up Israel again. But reality is reality.

Until we and our allies completely ween ourself from middle east oil, or Russian gas, power projection is still important. Not seeing our Japanese ally getting out of that barrel any time soon.

bt

texl1649 wrote:

Portugal, Norway, the UK and Greece in the EU/Europe have orders/operate the P-8. I’m not sure why it is so widely presumed US resources will be afforded/dedicated to Europe in the future, particularly 10+ years out. (Please don’t bring Israel again into the discussion bikerthai, as that is just a canard you can take to another forum.) Power projection? Why do we need to project ‘power’ (via ASW surveillance?) from the US into the Mediterranean/North Sea/Baltic seas in 2040? The support for doing so is going to continue to drop moving forward.

Europe (and Germany in particular) needs to behave, plan for, and spend on her defense as an adult in the room, not plan to get indefinite assistance from the US. Build your own, or buy the available P-8, whatever.

Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (2013-2020) - Dated 21 Oct 2020
"The cut-off date for information used in this report was 5 October 2020. Figures for 2019 and 2020 are estimates."
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_178975.htm

Link to download the full document:
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014 ... 104-en.pdf

bikerthai wrote:

seahawk wrote:

We are not taking about harbour patrol, we are talking about the North Sea or the Baltic Sea, the Irish Sea, the channel, the Bay of Biscay, and probably the whole Med.

OK let's take harbor patrol and any semi-closed water body of water out of the equation. Those bodies can be monitored by close to shore systems like small UAV and helicopters and what ever small MMA currently exists.

That leaves the North Sea, and North Atlantic, there will be enough long range MMA monitor Russian subs with the US, UK and Norwegian P-8A.

Most of the commercial shipping traffic will be traversing the Atlantic. You wouldn't use the P-8A or even smaller MMA for monitoring those. You use satellites. And besides, don't think Germany will be sending any MMA there anyway.

That leaves the Med which I will agree that there is a need for both small and large MMA.

Then it comes to affordability. If a country like Germany, whose economy is strong, chose to go the small route, then who is left in NATO to go the the large route?

bt

Helicopters are very uneconomic for the patrol mission and going with the small option, does not mean you spent less, it just means you can buy and operate more planes for the same amount of money and when I look at Europe´s MPA fleet, I think numbers have quite a charm.

seahawk wrote:

Helicopters are very uneconomic for the patrol mission and going with the small option, does not mean you spent less, it just means you can buy and operate more planes for the same amount of money and when I look at Europe´s MPA fleet, I think numbers have quite a charm.

I can't think of a time when a non-US NATO country elected to for the more/cheaper option and actually purchased and sustained "More."

Can you think of one?

Regarding helos in the ASW/MPA environment, for certain circumstances, there is either no option (extending the range of surface combatants to successful detection/prosecution) have capability outside of UAVs/MPA FW (SAR support, VBSS support, anti-FAC/FIAC) or have the ability to effectively operate in congested areas like harbors and canals.

As I mentioned earlier, successful ASW/MPA/MDA is a team effort, and the place for high-end MPA aircraft (especially with sensors/communications/weapons) is obvious to the point where despite the Nimrod fiasco, the RAF/RN sustained the software to reconstitute the capability. Further, its likely these aircraft are going to be engaged in many more expeditionary roles than the past.

I'd certainly love the Bundeswehr to look into some cheaper capability and look potentially to their reserve component to man it for further savings.

However, due to the nature of the German military writ large, and its heretofore challenges in even keeping limited capability fully mission capable over long term, the answer is logically buying platforms that a G-7 country that prides itself on being a pillar of governance and sustaining that ability (leveraging the investment of other partners, which they've been happy to share in the past.)

So the Artic ice is melting opening up area of operation for surface fleet. Maybe the Canadians may want to think about replacing their P-3s as well, or will their frames last until 2035 and get the P-8s as second hand from the Germans .

bt

The Haushaltsausschuss (Federal Budget Commitee is the best translation) has approved the purchase of 5 P-8A for the German Navy today.

Will the full parliament vote soon or will they wait until after election?

bt

The parliamentary vote is a pure formality at this point. The commitee's vote is sufficient for the government to sign the necessary contracts.

mxaxai wrote:

The parliamentary vote is a pure formality at this point. The commitee's vote is sufficient for the government to sign the necessary contracts.

Cool, thanks.

So the out going Chancellor will get to present some goodies to the White House on the up coming visit.

bt

Flying-Tiger wrote:

The Haushaltsausschuss (Federal Budget Commitee is the best translation) has approved the purchase of 5 P-8A for the German Navy today.

Very disappointing decision. Chalk up another win for mass-produced mediocrity.

744SPX wrote:

Chalk up another win for mass-produced mediocrity.

Yet the best in it's class at the moment.

Sure we can debate the P-1 all we want, but you would not be able to get them in time. And good luck to you if you can get them with in the allotted budget.

bt

Good decision to buy the P-8A. Ready and compatible to what the other partner nations use as well. Those used Orions were some dead end road from the beginning.

bikerthai wrote:

So the Artic ice is melting opening up area of operation for surface fleet. Maybe the Canadians may want to think about replacing their P-3s as well, or will their frames last until 2035 and get the P-8s as second hand from the Germans .

bt

The Canadian CP-140's had a major mid-life upgrade done to them a few years ago, with new wings and tails. Avionics and mission systems were also upgraded as well, and continue to be upgraded.

A very logical procurement, but I have to say a new 737 with a Luftwaffe cross on it will be amusing to see.

ThePointblank wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

So the Artic ice is melting opening up area of operation for surface fleet. Maybe the Canadians may want to think about replacing their P-3s as well, or will their frames last until 2035 and get the P-8s as second hand from the Germans .

bt

The Canadian CP-140's had a major mid-life upgrade done to them a few years ago, with new wings and tails. Avionics and mission systems were also upgraded as well, and continue to be upgraded.

Publications suggests that the life extension only bring the service life to 2030. Maybe they can squeeze a few more years out of those airframe

bt

texl1649 wrote:

A very logical procurement, but I have to say a new 737 with a Luftwaffe cross on it will be amusing to see.

Artist rendition:
https://www.flugrevue.de/militaer/moegl ... fuer-p-8a/

Looks good to me

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... -petition/

seems to be a rational choice

officials cite an analysis earlier this year which found the P-3 fleet to be in such bad shape that only two of the aircraft would be usable starting in late 2023 unless the government sinks considerable money into upkeep.

Adding to the P-3 Orion’s woes was “tanking damage” sustained by one aircraft last year that officials deemed too expensive to repair, according to the document.

German defense leaders also want to jump on the P-8 offer because it came in lower than the amount they previously thought they would have to spend beginning in 2025, according to the missive.

texl1649 wrote:

A very logical procurement, but I have to say a new 737 with a Luftwaffe cross on it will be amusing to see.

And considering the longevity of these aircraft, they should be flying with that cross into the 2040s and perhaps 2060s as well.

Might even be around for the 100th anniversary of the 737's first flight...

bajs11 wrote:

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2021/06/21/german-government-ups-the-pressure-in-11b-poseidon-purchase-petition/

German defense leaders also want to jump on the P-8 offer because it came in lower than the amount they previously thought they would have to spend beginning in 2025, according to the missive.

See, Boeing really does just give away their airplanes!

Revelation wrote:

And considering the longevity of these aircraft, they should be flying with that cross into the 2040s and perhaps 2060s as well.

Might even be around for the 100th anniversary of the 737's first flight...

Only if the French doesn't get their act together with the A320 MMA. Otherwise, those frames will be wearing the Maple Leaf

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Revelation wrote:

And considering the longevity of these aircraft, they should be flying with that cross into the 2040s and perhaps 2060s as well.

Might even be around for the 100th anniversary of the 737's first flight...

Only if the French doesn't get their act together with the A320 MMA. Otherwise, those frames will be wearing the Maple Leaf

bt

They are said to be an interim solution. But honestley I believe they will be as much as an interim solution as the F-4 Phantom was before with over 40 years of service.

Nothing is as long lasting as "interim solutions". Typically they are needed to deal with some real, urgent need.

https://www.streetinsider.com/dr/news.p ... 6294&gfv=1

Germany signed.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Only if the French doesn't get their act together with the A320 MMA. Otherwise, those frames will be wearing the Maple Leaf

bt

As much as I'd love to see a 320MMA I don't seriously think Airbus sees a point at this stage.

Honestly, the now MMA market is now the Canadians and the French. We are talking potentially 30 airframes between them. Throw another 10-15 third country orders, and in the most optimistic scenario, potentially an Alliance wide buy for 4-8 airborne SIGINT platforms. That's less than 50 aircraft, for what is now a paper airplane that's likely going to be more expensive than the P-1, let alone the P-8.

FlapOperator wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Only if the French doesn't get their act together with the A320 MMA. Otherwise, those frames will be wearing the Maple Leaf

bt

As much as I'd love to see a 320MMA I don't seriously think Airbus sees a point at this stage.

Honestly, the now MMA market is now the Canadians and the French. We are talking potentially 30 airframes between them. Throw another 10-15 third country orders, and in the most optimistic scenario, potentially an Alliance wide buy for 4-8 airborne SIGINT platforms. That's less than 50 aircraft, for what is now a paper airplane that's likely going to be more expensive than the P-1, let alone the P-8.

Ridiculous to consider throwing billions of euros at developing an MPA with a miniscule market when the P-1 exists already, is available for export and sounds acceptable.

art wrote:

Ridiculous to consider throwing billions of euros at developing an MPA with a miniscule market when the P-1 exists already, is available for export and sounds acceptable.

I'm both a P-1 and getting the Japanese into weapons export game proponent, but a P-1 would be a hard sell against the P-8 in the Euro context. Just too many economies of scale across the DOTMLPF.

Revelation wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

A very logical procurement, but I have to say a new 737 with a Luftwaffe cross on it will be amusing to see.

And considering the longevity of these aircraft, they should be flying with that cross into the 2040s and perhaps 2060s as well.

Might even be around for the 100th anniversary of the 737's first flight...

bajs11 wrote:

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2021/06/21/german-government-ups-the-pressure-in-11b-poseidon-purchase-petition/

German defense leaders also want to jump on the P-8 offer because it came in lower than the amount they previously thought they would have to spend beginning in 2025, according to the missive.

See, Boeing really does just give away their airplanes!

Given that the original 737 was largely spec'd to Lufthansa's requirement/needs, it's a bit apropo.

I think it is a perfect choice. LH can probably deal with this plane better than anybody.

rlwynn wrote:

I think it is a perfect choice. LH can probably deal with this plane better than anybody.

Lufthansa don’t any 737’s in there fleet.

No, but they are an MRO for the type.

rlwynn wrote:

No, but they are an MRO for the type.

They are also directly linked to Boeing Commercial Spares/Support network. While the P-8A is a military product, most of the day to day maintenance items are commercial parts.

As shown by the recent report on the US Navy P-8A in Europe, if you dont have a good parts ordering/tracking system in place, you'll find yourself grounded for a lack of O rings.

Lufthansa Tech should be able to avoid those issues.

bt

France is evidently ending an agreement with Germany over the P-8 acquisition:

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/paris-t ... 2021-07-07

HowardDGA wrote:

France is evidently ending an agreement with Germany over the P-8 acquisition:

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/paris-t ... 2021-07-07

With France as the primary driver behind MAWS that project is dead if they pull out, and it promotes the P-8 from an interim to a permanent solution.

The question then becomes what France is going to choose as their future MPA. Do they have the funds to develop something on their own?

re: [mxaxai] “The question then becomes what France is going to choose as their future MPA. Do they have the funds to develop something on their own?”

My uninformed armchair speculation:

1. Convert the Atlantique systems to fit on the Falcon MPA. Minituriazation could start on the Atlantique for existing systems.
2. Partner with the biggest loser of the P-8 success: Lockheed.
3. Move the Atlantique systems to a militarized A320.
4. Partner with Japan on the P-1.

All of these have varying degrees of cost. 1 and 3 probably best preserve a European source and French jobs. 2 gets a partner who has established sales contacts with maritime patrol customers and some technology of their own. 4 gets a willing partner who, combined with France’s own needs for 20-ish Atlantique replacements, will generate a 40-ish production run. Work share discussions may be challenging.

But with no other likely European partner now that Germany has moved on, I think France/Dassault will need to cast a wider net.

or 5. also buy the P8

Make a Dassault biz jet MPA.

The french will likely go with a domestic program. That's what they say. Big winged (range, 3 engine over water redundancy). They already ordered 8x this one for related missions.


https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... his-month/

They might even consider the 10x, that has more range but twin engined. https://www.aero-mag.com/dassault-aviat ... -07052021/

I guess Airbus did a weak job only showing drawings, models, no real commitment. https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/wp-conte ... 8.jpg.webp

I think the Germans had no real choice, apparently the P3C's are worn out & a serious replacement was at least 10(?) years away from replacing the complete fleet. Even so I think A320 (&737) are heavily compromised platforms for the mission. But there simply are no alternatives. No one sees the business case to create a just right MPA solution (range, capacity, size, specs) it seems. Except the Japanese who did it.

seahawk wrote:

Make a Dassault biz jet MPA.

They've done it before.....

columba wrote:

or 5. also buy the P8

Why not, the CFM engines will be powering over 200 P-8As by the time the lime shut down.

bt

seahawk wrote:

Make a Dassault biz jet MPA.

Why? Just buy the P-8, or if you're feeling super baller, the P-1.

The investment in building a Eurocentric MPA has pretty much a less than zero business case. There are literally 50 other places in the pantheon of European defense modernization that has a better return on investment, starting with a mildly better than a snowball's chance at foreign military sales than a boutique MPA aircraft.

keesje wrote:

I think the Germans had no real choice, apparently the P3C's are worn out & a serious replacement was at least 10(?) years away from replacing the complete fleet. Even so I think A320 (&737) are heavily compromised platforms for the mission. But there simply are no alternatives. No one sees the business case to create a just right MPA solution (range, capacity, size, specs) it seems. Except the Japanese who did it.

Of course they had no choice. The P-8 is really the only game in town.

The P-1 being "just right" is completely laughable. Its completely bespoke and really top of the line kit. The problem is that its completely bespoke, from the engines to the tactical equipment to the flight control actuators. it's a larger aircraft. The only real problem the P-1 has is that its facing a P-8 with lots of COTS and immediate and known worldwide product support, a large USN training, operational test, integration and evaluation program, and basically immediately NATO compatible software/hardware solutions.

Additionally, who determines "just right?" In the lifetime of the Orion, the mission has shifted from blue water ASW, to littoral operations, to overland ISR/SOF support while all the while requiring the ability to do HVA escort, counter-drug air/surface interdiction, and OTH targeting.

The reality is that MPA is a platform where engineering reserve, not yesterday's Goldilocks solution, is the obvious route forward. That is, if the point isn't to make another Euro jobs program weapons simulator.

There us now a press statement from BA

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... r-germany/

Sent from my SM-J415F using Tapatalk

This is the 5 option planes that were part of the US Navy lot 12 contract. Too late for the new government to back out now?

bt

I am just a layman, but I get the feeling that the airplane part of this program is the least important part. What really matters are the sensors and the electronics.....and they could be packaged in any reasonably sized tube. I wonder if Germany gets everything.

Packaging, airframe integration and certification is a big chunk of the development cost. Germany could produce adequate sensors domestically but they don't want to wait or pay for integration on a small A320 fleet.

bikerthai wrote:

This is the 5 option planes that were part of the US Navy lot 12 contract. Too late for the new government to back out now?

bt

With the new government, it seems less likely they'd back out of a deal. (I hope I'm not eating my words here).
The SPD and Greens both have stated in their platforms that they wished for Germany to take on more responsibility globally in terms of promoting democracy,
and being willing to participate in reasonable multinational interventions. The Greens are very anti-China while the SPD and FDP are more cautious about German companies' position there.
The participation in the Kosovo War and the war in Afghanistan was driven by a SPD-Green government at the time.

SteelChair wrote:

I wonder if Germany gets everything.

AFAIK, the UK gets everything the US and AUS got. Pretty much the same for Norway. So makes sense if Germany will have the same configuration as well. Interoperability would dictate as such.

bt