Updated: Germany signs order for Five Boeing P-8A Poseidon Aircraft

bikerthai · Mon May 10, 2021 11:36 am

mxaxai wrote:
Yes, for example NATO ships and, independently, German and Portuguese P-3C for refugee / border surveillance.

So for refugees or border surveillance, or even shipping channel monitoring, you can go with a cheaper system like a Scan Eagle coming off a sea asset. You still need that Sea asset anyway to intercept what ever you found.

bt

texl1649 · Mon May 10, 2021 1:54 pm

Sounds like it's going to be the P-8;

The selection of the P-8 Poseidon emerged during a parliamentary interrogation after the United States approved a possible Foreign Military Sale of five aircraft to Germany.

The Bundesministerium der Verteidigung (BMVg), the German Federal Ministry of Defence, is looking to the Boeing P-8A Poseidon as the temporary replacement for its ageing fleet of Lockheed P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft, according to Parliamentary State Secretary Thomas Silberhorn.

Silberhorn, as quoted by the German newspaper Behoerden Spiegel, answered to questions from Bundestag members, on behalf of the Federal Minister of Defence, about the proposals from Boeing and France.

Answering about Boeing’s proposal, which would make Germany the third operator of the P-8A in the European continent, the Poseidon was described as an equal replacement for the Orion:

“The capabilities of Boeing’s P-8A Poseidon weapon system basically correspond to those of the P-3C Orion. Only the P-8A Poseidon weapon system could ensure a seamless and timely capability transition if a Foreign Military Sales contract were concluded before the summer break in 2021. The possibility of operation for an interim period in the overall system of the Bundeswehr using the existing infrastructure of the base in Nordholz would be given.”

The U.S. Department of State has already approved a possible Foreign Military Sale of five P-8 Poseidons to Germany in March 2021, for an estimated total cost of 1.77 billion USD.

https://theaviationist.com/2021/05/10/p-8-germany/

The 1.77B USD estimated price is however provisional, as Germany has not yet officially selected the P-8 and signed the contract with Boeing. Also, the acquisition program has not yet been approved by the Bundestag. The DSCA notification highlighted that this sale would allow an easy transition from the P-3C Orion to the P-8A, allowing the sustainment of the German Maritime Surveillance Aircraft (MSA) capability for the next 30 years, which contrasts the German claim that this will be only a temporary replacement until the new Maritime Airborne Warfare System (MAWS) is ready to be introduced in service.

The other proposal was submitted by France, with an offer for four Atlantique 2 (ATL2) aircraft, the modernized variant of the Breguet Br.1150 Atlantic. Answering about this proposal, Silberhorn said to the Bundestag:

“The number and the expected readiness of the aircraft on offer will foreseeably not be able to cover the requirements of potential future operational commitments as well as the needs for crew regeneration and for conducting training and reconnaissance flights.”

Let's just see if this survives the political bruhaha that will inevitably follow, and also keeje's disapproval.

bikerthai · Mon May 10, 2021 2:45 pm

So, pending the defense budget approval. Does Germany government have the ability to line item veto individual program or do they have to approve or disapprove the whole package?

bt

texl1649 · Mon May 10, 2021 2:53 pm

The rest of the article goes into the justifications, which basically amount to the fact that after 2023 they will be down to just two serviceable/capable P-3's. This is really just the result of kicking the can down the road last time on used frames, and can't make it to 2035 no matter what. Much of the above discussion on this thread assumed the P-3's would make it substantially to 2035, yet the truth is only 2 might make it to 2023.

The Atlantic 2's just can't fill the gap;

As a side note, the German Navy has already operated the Atlantic in the past between 1963 and 2005, with 20 aircraft delivered and some converted to perform SIGINT (Signals Intelligence) missions. The ATL2 was considered as a replacement, but ultimately the choice went to ex-Dutch P-3 Orions. Eight Orions are still in service, however half of them are inoperable “due to damage that cannot be repaired economically”. Out of those four aircraft, according to the government, only two aircraft will probably still be usable from 2023. According to Cirium fleets data mentioned by FlightGlobal, the German Orions have an average age 37.8 years.

Initially, the P-3C was supposed to be retired in 2035, when MAWS is expected to be ready for service. The German Federal Ministry of Defence, however, ended in June 2020 the modernization plan of the Orion because of “costs and technical difficulties”, beginning a market survey to avoid an unacceptable and taking into account all interactions with the Franco-German MAWS program.

bikerthai · Mon May 10, 2021 2:54 pm

The silver lining would be once they start operating the P-8A, they will be in a great position to bench mark for the MAWS. Nothing like hands on experience to get a feel of what can be done better.

bt

seahawk · Mon May 10, 2021 3:12 pm

This most not make it through parliament. The SPD must block it.

bikerthai · Mon May 10, 2021 4:46 pm

Seahawk,

Can you tell us if German parliament can reject specific project? Or do they have to reject the whole budget request and have the defense force submit a new proposal?

I mean if they did their homework and have certain high priority program they want to protect, then wouldn't it be difficult to drop the P-8A without a line item veto?

bt

texl1649 · Mon May 10, 2021 5:12 pm

Johannes Peters might be slightly more dispassionate than some of our partisans on the board;

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -p-3c-mpa/

MAWS will probably continue with marginal funding thru 2030, with a nominal goal of EIS around 2035, but the reality is that Germany won’t have access to it with full mission capability until toward 2050 for a fleet of 4-8 aircraft, which will be when the P-8’s are likely to be in need of retirement anyway. It’s going to be a basic jobs program.

mxaxai · Mon May 10, 2021 6:05 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Seahawk,

Can you tell us if German parliament can reject specific project? Or do they have to reject the whole budget request and have the defense force submit a new proposal?

I mean if they did their homework and have certain high priority program they want to protect, then wouldn't it be difficult to drop the P-8A without a line item veto?

bt

The budget committee of the parliament has to individually accept or reject any contract worth more than EUR 25 million. The committee consists of representatives of the parties according to their number of seats in the parliament.

The parliament then gets to accept the entire budget for the next year, every year.

---------------
The current long-term financial plan of the German government does not contain funds for the P-3C replacement. It also does not contain financing for the Tornado replacement, further FCAS development, the CH-53G replacement, Tiger upgrades / replacement or a future ground-based air defence system.

This matches the budget request by the ministry of defence for an increase from this year's EUR 53B to EUR 61.5B in 2025. While the treasury is planning with a decrease in defence spending towards EUR 45B in 2025.

At some point in the future, the parliament and government will either have to accept EUR 20B additional funding for the defence budget or several projects will get cancelled.

acecrackshot · Mon May 10, 2021 6:10 pm

seahawk wrote:
I would be fine with Do228.

What ASW capability or overland ISR capability would a Do228 provide? What would be the deployment timeframes to any NATO nation outside the Baltic?

keesje · Mon May 10, 2021 6:13 pm

I think the Bundestag has little options. There is no EuropeFirst alternative. I can see P8 for the transatlantic mission and CN295/ATR for less demanding missions. More info on the P-3C upgrage drama: https://dsm.forecastinternational.com/w ... -examined/
MAWS is aiming at 2030. Selling off interim P8's wouldn't be much of a problem. Maybe they can lease them. The German parliament are different party coalitions with different priorities and majority's. they aren't driven by a need to spend a huge cold war budget to keep up millions of jobs and local companies without big enemies.

acecrackshot · Mon May 10, 2021 6:24 pm

bikerthai wrote:
The silver lining would be once they start operating the P-8A, they will be in a great position to bench mark for the MAWS. Nothing like hands on experience to get a feel of what can be done better.

bt

The 320 MMA is a serious decade plus behind where it needs to be in the market, and would have to be very competitively priced to make up for the economies of scale for essentially a ground up training, material integration, tactics and facilities standpoint. Even if the MPA fairy by magic makes a fleet tomorrow, we're talking many months or years to a IOC, then FOC for just weapons integration and testing and crew quals.

That's OK. Airbus can sell 320s for another 25 years at the present rate. I guess I just don't get how PESCO/NATO can't look at some pretty awesome capability in RIVET JOINT/AIRSEEKER, JSTARS, COMBAT SENT and COMPASS CALL as the kind of supra-national capability that really doesn't have an non-US analog (outside of the RAF's AIRSEEKER.)

acecrackshot · Mon May 10, 2021 6:26 pm

keesje wrote:
The German parliament are different party coalitions with different priorities and majority's. they aren't driven by a need to spend a huge cold war budget to keep up millions of jobs and local companies without big enemies.

This isn't 1997 anymore.

The Russian government is aggressive, and the German government fundamentally sees out-of-area operations as core to the future German military.

keesje · Mon May 10, 2021 8:10 pm

acecrackshot wrote:
keesje wrote:
The German parliament are different party coalitions with different priorities and majority's. they aren't driven by a need to spend a huge cold war budget to keep up millions of jobs and local companies without big enemies.

This isn't 1997 anymore.

The Russian government is aggressive, and the German government fundamentally sees out-of-area operations as core to the future German military.

the Russian head of state speaks german, the german head of state russian, they know each other for more then a decade. if something goes wrong, Merkel picks up the telephone to have another long difficult conversation with Putin again. Fixed. The German politics are focussed on Germany and Europe. out of area is not the core of German operations. Nationalism, militarism, globalism won't get majorities for operation outside EU or UN mandates.

VSMUT · Mon May 10, 2021 8:31 pm

acecrackshot wrote:
I guess I just don't get how PESCO/NATO can't look at some pretty awesome capability in RIVET JOINT/AIRSEEKER, JSTARS, COMBAT SENT and COMPASS CALL as the kind of supra-national capability that really doesn't have an non-US analog (outside of the RAF's AIRSEEKER.)

Because PESCO was created to offset US influence, and the US has been vehemently opposed to it from day 1. It would be counterproductive to throw them a bone for all the trouble they cause.

texl1649 · Mon May 10, 2021 9:04 pm

keesje wrote:
acecrackshot wrote:
keesje wrote:
The German parliament are different party coalitions with different priorities and majority's. they aren't driven by a need to spend a huge cold war budget to keep up millions of jobs and local companies without big enemies.

This isn't 1997 anymore.

The Russian government is aggressive, and the German government fundamentally sees out-of-area operations as core to the future German military.

the Russian head of state speaks german, the german head of state russian, they know each other for more then a decade. if something goes wrong, Merkel picks up the telephone to have another long difficult conversation with Putin again. Fixed. The German politics are focussed on Germany and Europe. out of area is not the core of German operations. Nationalism, militarism, globalism won't get majorities for operation outside EU or UN mandates.

Quite the Gordian knot, some would say, about having an East Germany head of state tied up in the nord stream 2/pro Russia contingent of German energy/politics/money, nominally calling the shot for another 8+ months. The F-18/P-8 decisions probably will be made solely by the legislature, imho. And they lack the time to kick the can down the road a la heavy lift helicopter decision.

acecrackshot · Mon May 10, 2021 9:47 pm

VSMUT wrote:
acecrackshot wrote:
I guess I just don't get how PESCO/NATO can't look at some pretty awesome capability in RIVET JOINT/AIRSEEKER, JSTARS, COMBAT SENT and COMPASS CALL as the kind of supra-national capability that really doesn't have an non-US analog (outside of the RAF's AIRSEEKER.)

Because PESCO was created to offset US influence, and the US has been vehemently opposed to it from day 1. It would be counterproductive to throw them a bone for all the trouble they cause.

The US isn't against PESCO per se or certainly against greater European defense investment in general. The US is against defense protectionism, especially for smaller nations who would have to choose between the best weapons for their needs and participation in the greater European project. Additionally, the US wants the EU to work on the integration stuff like Military Schengen that would have lasting benefit, versus trying to be NATO V2.0, of which they would just siphoning resources into duplicative effort.

acecrackshot · Mon May 10, 2021 9:50 pm

keesje wrote:

the Russian head of state speaks german, the german head of state russian, they know each other for more then a decade. if something goes wrong, Merkel picks up the telephone to have another long difficult conversation with Putin again. Fixed. The German politics are focussed on Germany and Europe. out of area is not the core of German operations. Nationalism, militarism, globalism won't get majorities for operation outside EU or UN mandates.

You're right, this isn't the Cold War. No General Secretary of the CPSU would ever do something so provocative as say, hosing down a city in a nuclear armed state with nerve gas.

VSMUT · Tue May 11, 2021 1:27 am

acecrackshot wrote:
The US is against defense protectionism

Are you kidding?!? The US is the protectionist part here. Last I checked, they have forced hundreds of F-35s, F-16s, P-8s, C-17s, C-130s, C-17s etc. on European nations. They couldn't even be bothered to run the tanker competition fairly with a European winner.

bikerthai · Tue May 11, 2021 1:51 am

VSMUT wrote:
Last I checked, they have forced hundreds of F-35s, F-16s, P-8s, C-17s, C-130s, C-17s etc.

Just like the commonwealth forced the AV-8 and the Striker on to the US. :roll:

If you are not willing to foot the bill for R&D to develop advanced weapon systems, then don't complain when US hardware is the only game in town.

The A330 tanker is a success. The A400 was at least an effort. No-one is foisting the P-8A on to the UK or Norwegians. (At least India is getting 30% off-sets for their P-8I.)

The T-7 and Grey Wolf are both colaborations with European partners. So thing are not as black and white as in the past.

bt

seahawk · Tue May 11, 2021 5:26 am

acecrackshot wrote:
seahawk wrote:
I would be fine with Do228.

What ASW capability or overland ISR capability would a Do228 provide? What would be the deployment timeframes to any NATO nation outside the Baltic?

Hopefully none. All it needs to do is SAR near the German coast and humanitarian missions in the Med.

bajs11 · Tue May 11, 2021 11:35 am

bikerthai wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
Last I checked, they have forced hundreds of F-35s, F-16s, P-8s, C-17s, C-130s, C-17s etc.

Just like the commonwealth forced the AV-8 and the Striker on to the US.

If you are not willing to foot the bill for R&D to develop advanced weapon systems, then don't complain when US hardware is the only game in town.

The A330 tanker is a success. The A400 was at least an effort. No-one is foisting the P-8A on to the UK or Norwegians. (At least India is getting 30% off-sets for their P-8I.)

The T-7 and Grey Wolf are both colaborations with European partners. So thing are not as black and white as in the past.

bt

I've been reading the Anet forums since early 2000s and it seems not much has changed since then.
I am just glad that few European politicians in the ruling parties are into this Trumpian Europe first nonsense.
My country has bought US made weapons and exported/collaborated with the Americans on several programs and I am sure our neighbor, Norway were not forced to purchase their F-35s and C-130s and are happy to sell missiles like the NSM/JSM and NASAMS to the US.

acecrackshot · Tue May 11, 2021 12:35 pm

seahawk wrote:
acecrackshot wrote:
seahawk wrote:
I would be fine with Do228.

What ASW capability or overland ISR capability would a Do228 provide? What would be the deployment timeframes to any NATO nation outside the Baltic?

Hopefully none. All it needs to do is SAR near the German coast and humanitarian missions in the Med.

Why? I mean, that would certainly be one view of a German military role, but is that really keeping with its obligations as a treaty bound, wealthy nation?

Germany DOES have mutual defense obligations within NATO, and a more generalized requirement for European Security does it not?

I guess if your argument is that Germany should unilaterally disarm, then your argument for what weapons its does buy are suspect.

bikerthai · Tue May 11, 2021 12:48 pm

acecrackshot wrote:
guess if your argument is that Germany should unilaterally disarm, then your argument for what weapons its does buy are suspect.

For the longest time, Germany was at the front line of the cold war. Now, it has the benefit of a buffer zone to the nearest threat, It's needs and obligation will have shifted.

So now if it wants to be magnanimous, the weapon system it buy may need to emphasize more on force projection? :scratchchin:

Besides in effective alliances, should those who have the can afford it, provide the advanced weapons and those who can't, provide the warrior? :duck:

bt

seahawk · Tue May 11, 2021 4:59 pm

acecrackshot wrote:
seahawk wrote:
acecrackshot wrote:

What ASW capability or overland ISR capability would a Do228 provide? What would be the deployment timeframes to any NATO nation outside the Baltic?

Hopefully none. All it needs to do is SAR near the German coast and humanitarian missions in the Med.

Why? I mean, that would certainly be one view of a German military role, but is that really keeping with its obligations as a treaty bound, wealthy nation?

Germany DOES have mutual defense obligations within NATO, and a more generalized requirement for European Security does it not?

I guess if your argument is that Germany should unilaterally disarm, then your argument for what weapons its does buy are suspect.

If we would look at the most sensible solution for NATO, we would not buy the 5 P-8, but 10-15 ATRs or C295, which would be a nice backup to the P-8s of other nations. If you look at the Russian threat, there will be plenty US/UK and Norwegian P-8s to work the North Atlantic but there will be nearly no planes to work the North Sea or the Baltic Sea. Yet NATO will still need MPAs to patrol the harbour approaches and 12 German ATRs would free more P-8s for duties in the North Atlantic than 5 P-8s would add, especially if the P-8s still have to patrol the approaches to German harbours 24/7.

bikerthai · Tue May 11, 2021 7:09 pm

With the US, UK, Norway, the North Atlantic should be well covered. The area of need would probably be the Mediterranean and Black Sea approaches. The only P-8A presence in the south would be the US deployment in Sigonella in Italy. It would be nice to have a NATO P-8A contingent there as well.

P-8As are overkill for harbor approach and shipping lanes. They are well suited for deep water patrol and Signint.

bt

acecrackshot · Tue May 11, 2021 10:31 pm

Just as point of argument, but why is the presence of any USN assets just assumed?

At what point does the US become an enabler to Euro defense capability rather than the prime capacity when Frau Merkel’s facility with the Russian language fails?

texl1649 · Tue May 11, 2021 11:16 pm

acecrackshot wrote:
Just as point of argument, but why is the presence of any USN assets just assumed?

At what point does the US become an enabler to Euro defense capability rather than the prime capacity when Frau Merkel’s facility with the Russian language fails?

Well put. US resources should not be assumed in future European plans. 1945 is approaching a centennial during the lifespan of the aircraft/acquisitions we debate on this board today.

bikerthai · Wed May 12, 2021 3:51 am

texl1649 wrote:
US resources should not be assumed in future European plans.

The presents of US troop in Europe is not only for the defense of Europe but also for the projection of force beyond our border.

Even if the US pull its troops from the far reaches of the world, its affiliation with Israel still make it a target for adversaries.

And recall the recent hubbub on the border of Ukrane. I have a feeling the US will not be out of Europe until Russia have free and fair elections.

bt

seahawk · Wed May 12, 2021 5:17 am

bikerthai wrote:
With the US, UK, Norway, the North Atlantic should be well covered. The area of need would probably be the Mediterranean and Black Sea approaches. The only P-8A presence in the south would be the US deployment in Sigonella in Italy. It would be nice to have a NATO P-8A contingent there as well.

P-8As are overkill for harbor approach and shipping lanes. They are well suited for deep water patrol and Signint.

bt

Still something will have to patrol harbour approaches and shipping lanes. That is where the targets for enemy submarines are and were you do not want anybody to leaves a load of mines behind.

vr773 · Wed May 12, 2021 11:26 am

Interesting development: There are a number of EUR 25M+ projects which the BMVg wants/needs but that aren't in the mid-term budget. The P3-C replacement is one of them. The Navy and the BMVg have both said they prefer the P-8. In a bit of a political stunt, the BMVg has now asked the Bundestag for approval of these not-budgeted projects (FCAS is another one btw). The political calculus here is to increase pressure on finding the money while at the same win the PR fight when the Bundestag rejects the financing.

My prediction is that the parliamentarians in charge will agree to finance some (e.g. FCAS, MGCS, new submarines), and delay the decision for others until at least after the election. I think the P-8 purchase is one of the projects that will not make it through now because the justification for the P-8 is weak and it could be a political win for some parliamentarians to challenge it. I just don't know whether that means the ATL2 will have a comeback in the debate or not. I personally didn't really understand why the BMVg didn't even consider the French offer.

bikerthai · Wed May 12, 2021 12:38 pm

vr773 wrote:
I personally didn't really understand why the BMVg didn't even consider the French offer.

If Germany approve the contract by this September, they can guarantee to their P-8A by 2023 or 2024.

Can they get the same guarantee with the ATL2? How many surprises will they see during the mod of these old frames?

How much money are they willing to spend to avoid another embarrassment. :blush:

bt

vr773 · Wed May 12, 2021 12:58 pm

bikerthai wrote:
vr773 wrote:
I personally didn't really understand why the BMVg didn't even consider the French offer.

If Germany approve the contract by this September, they can guarantee to their P-8A by 2023 or 2024.

Can they get the same guarantee with the ATL2? How many surprises will they see during the mod of these old frames?

How much money are they willing to spend to avoid another embarrassment.

bt

When BMVg Parliamentary State Secretary Thomas Silberhorn was asked about the ATL2 he just responded that they didn't even consider the French offer because the state of the aircraft that the French government was offering wasn't clear. Lacking information is a poor rationale because it hints at a communication issue between the French and German ministries that they should be able to resolve.

Noray · Wed May 12, 2021 1:40 pm

vr773 wrote:
When BMVg Parliamentary State Secretary Thomas Silberhorn was asked about the ATL2 he just responded that they didn't even consider the French offer because the state of the aircraft that the French government was offering wasn't clear. Lacking information is a poor rationale because it hints at a communication issue between the French and German ministries that they should be able to resolve.

That lack of information doesn't neccessarily hint at poor communication. It could simply mean that nobody knows what hides inside the structure of the old ATL2s until you disassemble them. This is exactly where Germany came from: Buying cheap old P-3Cs from the Netherlands that turned out to be money pits with very poor availability. How can you expect Germany to make that same mistake twice in a row, especially considering that the French offer included only half as many old aircraft as Germany is about to retire.

The French offer was a nice try, but they simply didn't have enough to offer since their pool of ATL-2s hardly exceeds their own requirement.

vr773 · Wed May 12, 2021 2:03 pm

Noray wrote:
vr773 wrote:
When BMVg Parliamentary State Secretary Thomas Silberhorn was asked about the ATL2 he just responded that they didn't even consider the French offer because the state of the aircraft that the French government was offering wasn't clear. Lacking information is a poor rationale because it hints at a communication issue between the French and German ministries that they should be able to resolve.

That lack of information doesn't neccessarily hint at poor communication. It could simply mean that nobody knows what hides inside the structure of the old ATL2s until you disassemble them. This is exactly where Germany came from: Buying cheap old P-3Cs from the Netherlands that turned out to be money pits with very poor availability. How can you expect Germany to make that same mistake twice in a row, especially considering that the French offer included only half as many old aircraft as Germany is about to retire.

The French offer was a nice try, but they simply didn't have enough to offer since their pool of ATL-2s hardly exceeds their own requirement.

But they only need to fly it for 15-17 years. Germany could figure out a maintenance cooperation with France and push for more air frames. Choosing the P-8 is a lot more costly, jeopardizes a key development cooperation project, and actually increases the risk of a capability gap (because the parliament is less likely to approve it).

mxaxai · Wed May 12, 2021 2:21 pm

vr773 wrote:
But they only need to fly it for 15-17 years. Germany could figure out a maintenance cooperation with France and push for more air frames. Choosing the P-8 is a lot more costly, jeopardizes a key development cooperation project, and actually increases the risk of a capability gap (because the parliament is less likely to approve it).

The first P-3C was delivered to Germany in 2006. Now, 15 years later, availability is extremely poor and only 2 of 8 aircraft are expected to remain usable by 2023.

15-17 years is a fairly long time for an aircraft. Many civilian airliners retire at such ages. Yes, the P-8 comes with a high price tag but it's reasonable to deprecate them over 10-12 years.

Regarding the cooperation with France, there are other projects that make more sense to cooperate on. Or perhaps set up a joint P-8 squadron with France and other EU members. I'm sure the French navy would rather have a dozen P-8s delivered in 2023 than wait until 2035+ for some A320-based MAWS.

bikerthai · Wed May 12, 2021 4:37 pm

If if I were reviewing two bids, and one of them do not have answer to all my questions I would have gone back for more details, time permitting. It's the responsibility of the bidder to provide a complete proposal. If time is of the essence, I would not even consider their bid and bite the bullet with the more expensive option.

15-17 years if you have confidence in the MAWS time line.

As I advocate, the resale value of the P-8A should be robust if and when MAWS comes to life. Besides who know the state of UAV by then?

bt

bikerthai · Wed May 12, 2021 4:40 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Or perhaps set up a joint P-8 squadron with France and other EU members.

Not EU, but other NATO members. Rumors are abound but the time line may not meet Germany's needs. :shhh:

bt

Noray · Wed May 12, 2021 4:41 pm

vr773 wrote:
But they only need to fly it for 15-17 years. Germany could figure out a maintenance cooperation with France and push for more air frames. Choosing the P-8 is a lot more costly, jeopardizes a key development cooperation project, and actually increases the risk of a capability gap (because the parliament is less likely to approve it).

Figuring out a cooperation would take many years just for the political and administrative decision making. There's no time left for this.

If the parliament doesn't approve the P-8, at least we'll know who's in charge for the loss of capability.

bikerthai · Wed May 12, 2021 4:55 pm

mxaxai wrote:
15-17 years is a fairly long time for an aircraft. Many civilian airliners retire at such ages.

Only Emirates does that because they don't want to deal with heavy maintenances. The other reason would be fuel efficiency with newer aircrafts, which is not an issue with the Navy.

The P-8A is expected to serve for 40 years and beyond with plenty of fatigue life. Remember a 737 is designed for 20-30 years of 5-6 GAG cycles per day. If the typical P-8A only fly 1-2 GAG cycle per day, you can extrapolate the life expectancy of the frame.

bt

bikerthai · Wed May 12, 2021 5:05 pm

One other interesting thing to consider is if Germany delay their decision, they may lose the line position as India is wrangling for more P-8s. If India gets in first, Germany may not get their first P-8s until 2024.

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 62.article

bt

texl1649 · Wed May 12, 2021 5:19 pm

India is wrangling for their own assembly line too. Between the two countries, it’s sort of a tortoise vs. tortoise race in terms of acquisition speeds. LOL.

angad84 · Wed May 12, 2021 5:53 pm

bikerthai wrote:
One other interesting thing to consider is if Germany delay their decision, they may lose the line position as India is wrangling for more P-8s. If India gets in first, Germany may not get their first P-8s until 2024.

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 62.article

bt

I don't think it'll come to that, USN can be expected to shuffle deliveries around to allow for FMS. Not like they're critically short of MPA.

India is a looooong way off ordering the next six P-8s anyway.

texl1649 wrote:
India is wrangling for their own assembly line too.

Nope.

bikerthai · Wed May 12, 2021 6:01 pm

angad84 wrote:
I don't think it'll come to that, USN can be expected to shuffle deliveries around to allow for FMS.

The US is running out of frames. Current US order brings it up to end of 2023. Anything after that will depends on the US Congress.

Still, your statement is correct. The extra cost of reshuffling frames is small in the grand scheme of thing.

bt

mxaxai · Wed May 12, 2021 7:43 pm

bikerthai wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
15-17 years is a fairly long time for an aircraft. Many civilian airliners retire at such ages.

Only Emirates does that because they don't want to deal with heavy maintenances. The other reason would be fuel efficiency with newer aircrafts, which is not an issue with the Navy.

bt

True, it's unlikely that they'll run out of hours or cycles within 15 years. But it's still a fairly long period that just seems small in comparison to a few 50+ year old aircraft. If you're forced to work with an unsatisfactory interim solution for 15 years, it'll feel like a long time.

The required maintenance increases significantly over time. Airlines like Ryanair or Emirates know why they prefer a young fleet. Even the Luftwaffe is planning to retire their Tranche 1 Eurofighters before their 20th birthday. You can keep jets in the air for decades but at some point it becomes very costly.

Not saying that the P-8 is only good for 15 years. But if they were retired after that time, Germany still would've gotten good use out of them.

acecrackshot · Thu May 13, 2021 11:44 am

seahawk wrote:

Still something will have to patrol harbour approaches and shipping lanes. That is where the targets for enemy submarines are and were you do not want anybody to leaves a load of mines behind.

That’s a poor mission for manned fixed wing aircraft.

ASW is a combined arms evolution, and close/harbor/confined water ASW/countermining has other assets (increasingly unmanned/autonomous ones) that do those persistent close in missions well.

bikerthai · Thu May 13, 2021 2:31 pm

I was going to say for harbor approach, the cheapest and robust solution are fixed sensor array and surface coastguard vessels.

Unmanned vehicles can be used to supplement during surges.

bt

seahawk · Thu May 13, 2021 3:52 pm

And who has those assets in NATO?

bikerthai · Thu May 13, 2021 4:20 pm

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. :duck:

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

acecrackshot · Thu May 13, 2021 4:28 pm

seahawk wrote:
And who has those assets in NATO?

Ask the COE-CSW at Kiel.

There is a reason that COE is in Kiel, and its not the weather and views.

ETA: Much of the DOTMLPF work is being done in Belgium, Kiel and Norfolk. I bet none of the answers will be "A 1950s turboprop with four observers with Steiner binoculars."

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net