bikerthai wrote:

Question is, have those P-3's been operating with allies beyond the German border?

If not, is it because of politics or availability? I mean if Germany wants to be more prominent in international endeavors, then the P-8A would be an easy deployment that is highly valued and can seamlessly integrate into any international search and rescue or disaster relief operations.

bt

Yes, they have. As posted earlier, the P-3 has been used as part of EU and NATO missions in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean and also regularly partakes in NATO excercises. It's mostly limited by availability: 2-3 aircraft are generally in heavy maintanance and another 2-3 are not fully mission capable due to minor issues. So assuming that 1 aircraft must remain for German coastal patrol duties, that leaves only 1-2 aircraft for long term deployments.

I agree that the P-8 would provide a good way to participate in international operations without lethal weapons. It can be redeployed to new locations quickly, it can cover large areas and it has a very wide range of sensors.

mxaxai wrote:

Yes, they have. As posted earlier, the P-3 has been used as part of EU and NATO missions in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean and also regularly partakes in NATO excercises.

This then is why I see Germany will chose the P-8 as the interim vs the smaller turboprop. And assuming budget will be available, a possibility of the A320 MMA in the long run.

This would be both logical and practical.

bt

ThePointblank wrote:

trex8 wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

[

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thedef ... ay-uk/amp/

This second article gives a better sense if how much more a FMS sale would cost compared to a US buy.

bt

That is for a modification to a previous contract, it is not the actual "total" price

Norway is paying 1.75 billion for 5
https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/n ... ed-support

NZ 1.46 billion for 4
https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/n ... ed-support

India 2.13 billion for 8
https://www.defensenews.com/industry/20 ... th-boeing/

Those contracts include things like spare parts, tooling, training and other assorted items. General rule of thumb is that the support and training portions of the contract are usually 2-3x the cost of whatever you are buying.

Absolutely, but those are costs a new operator has to incur. While follow on US orders will always be "low" per unit as those costs are usually already incurred or accounted for elsewhere.

mxaxai wrote:

2 of the 8 P-3C have received the new wings already and will get the full upgrade package. Those should last for a while.
On the other hand, 1 aircraft was heavily damaged on the ground earlier this year and might not be repaired. So that leaves only 5 non-upgraded aircraft to augment the 2 upgraded ones.

I don't think the 2025 deadline is firm but anyway 2025 is the target date given by the German MoD.

Slim margins. It wouldn’t take much to render the whole capability unsustainable if that is how they are operating today.

bikerthai wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Yes, they have. As posted earlier, the P-3 has been used as part of EU and NATO missions in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean and also regularly partakes in NATO excercises.

This then is why I see Germany will chose the P-8 as the interim vs the smaller turboprop. And assuming budget will be available, a possibility of the A320 MMA in the long run.

This would be both logical and practical.

bt

Other EU nations have used the smaller turboprops on the same missions.

In the end the question is not 6-8 P-8A vs. 6-8 Turboprops. But most likely 6 P-8A vs. 12 Turboprops and then you can have a very controversial debate on which solution provides more capability.

seahawk wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Yes, they have. As posted earlier, the P-3 has been used as part of EU and NATO missions in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean and also regularly partakes in NATO excercises.

Other EU nations have used the smaller turboprops on the same missions.

That is not entirely true. For example Operation Sophia in the Mediterranean did use various small European turboprops (CN-235, Metro III, ATR-72, An-28) but also saw the use of business jets (Dassault Falcon, Embraer 145) as well as the longer ranged P-3 and Breguet Atlantic.

Some of these (Metro III, An-28) are again in use for Operation Irini alongside the German P-3. I do believe that both missions chose assets based on what's available, and not what's actually the most useful ...

If we look at the mission off Somalia, there is only the P-3 in use. Spain and Germany alternate to allow the crew and aircraft to return home every few months.

seahawk wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Yes, they have. As posted earlier, the P-3 has been used as part of EU and NATO missions in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean and also regularly partakes in NATO excercises.

This then is why I see Germany will chose the P-8 as the interim vs the smaller turboprop. And assuming budget will be available, a possibility of the A320 MMA in the long run.

This would be both logical and practical.

bt

Other EU nations have used the smaller turboprops on the same missions. In the end the question is not 6-8 P-8A vs. 6-8 Turboprops. But most likely 6 P-8A vs. 12 Turboprops and then you can have a very controversial debate on which solution provides more capability.

And it offers another question: is there any sense in some of the NATO members (UK, Norway, Spain, France) to focus on long-range capabilities (= P-8, 320MMA), and others such as Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, Italy to focus on shorter-range options (ATR72, C295)? One size fits it all does not necessarily cut it for all. Apart from deployment areas (North and Baltic Sea, Med vs. North Atlantic) there is always the question if one wants to reply on one technology and one technology provider only, or prefers to keep several avenues open.

Not to forget: as far as Im aware the hangers in Nordholt would need to be rebuild for a P-8, whereas the C-295 and ATR72 should fit in nice into the already existing infrastructure.

Flying-Tiger wrote:

seahawk wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

This then is why I see Germany will chose the P-8 as the interim vs the smaller turboprop. And assuming budget will be available, a possibility of the A320 MMA in the long run.

This would be both logical and practical.

bt

Other EU nations have used the smaller turboprops on the same missions. In the end the question is not 6-8 P-8A vs. 6-8 Turboprops. But most likely 6 P-8A vs. 12 Turboprops and then you can have a very controversial debate on which solution provides more capability.

And it offers another question: is there any sense in some of the NATO members (UK, Norway, Spain, France) to focus on long-range capabilities (= P-8, 320MMA), and others such as Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, Italy to focus on shorter-range options (ATR72, C295)? One size fits it all does not necessarily cut it for all. Apart from deployment areas (North and Baltic Sea, Med vs. North Atlantic) there is always the question if one wants to reply on one technology and one technology provider only, or prefers to keep several avenues open.

Not to forget: as far as Im aware the hangers in Nordholt would need to be rebuild for a P-8, whereas the C-295 and ATR72 should fit in nice into the already existing infrastructure.

These P3C come from the early eighties and the last time I flew in one they already weren't brand new anymore. A big upgrade before the Germans got them, but they have had a lot of hours.

I agree on the European NATO requirement base, together with France, Spain, Netherlands, Portugal, Italy, (Maybe Canada?) they should look at standardization.

Maybe a bigger long range P8/ A320 XLR/ M3A type of MPA aircraft (maybe even A220 based) and a smaller, coastal optimized aircraft, ATR42/ C295 or even smaller. Ideally those would be spread out over 5-6 basis along the Atlantic and mediterranean.

Maybe they'll go for a dedicated, fully optimized new MPA though, with Airbus. One can dream


E.g. with two TP400 sized engines and a APTU

I kinda doubt Airbus, nor any customers, want to revisit the TP400 disaster, let alone Germany which is still trying to shed some A400’s. The P-1 has a great design but again integrating it across EU/NATO countries would be quite a pain for a number of reasons, and at the volumes discussed/mooted is probably at least 30-40 percent more expensive, net, to acquire and integrate/support vs. a P-8. As for the A220, it will be lucky to survive in production as an orphan of the worst sort at this point in the global aviation downturn, and loses based on ‘not made here’ points among many others vs. the alternatives.

I don’t think a (New) turboprop twin is likely to provide a similar power output to a P-8 for systems unless the Euro countries decide to go ‘all in’ and produce some sort of hybrid/hydrogen wild idea plane, but this would probably take longer in development than, say, the A400M itself did.

texl1649 wrote:

I don’t think a (New) turboprop twin is likely to provide a similar power output to a P-8 for systems unless the Euro countries decide to go ‘all in’ and produce some sort of hybrid/hydrogen wild idea plane, but this would probably take longer in development than, say, the A400M itself did.

Agree pie in the sky talk. Without some breakthrough technology the Turbo prop MPA market is already full and healthy. The last thing Airbus or anyone else needs is a new entrant that would require a significant development cost to recoup.

I thought I would add this discussion point in. While previous intent through the last nearly 30 years has been far less focused on higher end capability the future and the intent of European Navies looks to be moving again to confronting higher threat maritime challenges. In that context the movement to shorter ranged MPAs that many European Nations have gone, with decisions made sometimes 20 and 20 years previously, may hinder this progression.

With challenges aplenty, Europe’s navies are coming to grips with high-end warfare

And that has led to a precipitous decline in naval power available to surge in the event of a high-end conflict. In a 2017 study, the Center for a New American Security found that Europe’s combat power at sea was about half of what it was during the height of the Cold War.
“Atlantic-facing members of NATO now possess far fewer frigates — the premier class of surface vessels designated to conduct [anti-submarine warfare] ASW operations — than they did 20 years ago,” the study found.
Where they collectively had about 100 frigates in 1995, that number hovers at 51 today.
“Similarly, these nations had, in 1995, 145 attack submarines — those dedicated to anti-shipping and anti-submarine warfare missions — but that number has plummeted to a present low of 84,” the study found.

…

“I’m seeing European navies pivot back to the basics: How do we handle the GIUK [Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom] gap? How do we patrol the North Atlantic? Anti-submarine warfare, convoy escort, anti-surface warfare: They are starting to come back to that,” said Jerry Hendrix, an analyst with Telemus Group and a retired Navy captain. “And as you are starting to see the new heavy German designs, they’re coming back to focusing on a maritime challenger.”

…

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/transat ... d-warfare/

Similar then with the reduction in European Naval vessels has been the reduction in European Maritime Patrol. If we look at Germany, it went from 15 Atlantic to 8 P-3Cs. Italy also divested of the Atlantic and moved to the ATR-72, of which it has currently only ordered four. The Netherlands left FW MPA completely. Spain is moving to a Maritime patrol fleet with little ASW capability other than their aging P-3s. Portugal appears to be moving towards CN-295s.

As with the article’s suggestion that rebuilding Naval power will take a long time so too will the regeneration of European Naval aviation for Maritime Patrol. In that context, perhaps an A320 MPA or similar European jet is the way to go and the effort would be worth the wait for the expanded range and capabilities that sized airframe will offer.

The above doesn’t solve Germany’s 2025 timeframe but perhaps the groundwork is being laid for a return to a larger fleet size?

I think the C295 as bridging solution added by the th European solution around 2035 would make sense. You can then keep the CASAs as the low end option.

texl1649 wrote:

I kinda doubt Airbus, nor any customers, want to revisit the TP400 disaster, let alone Germany which is still trying to shed some A400’s. The P-1 has a great design but again integrating it across EU/NATO countries would be quite a pain for a number of reasons, and at the volumes discussed/mooted is probably at least 30-40 percent more expensive, net, to acquire and integrate/support vs. a P-8. As for the A220, it will be lucky to survive in production as an orphan of the worst sort at this point in the global aviation downturn, and loses based on ‘not made here’ points among many others vs. the alternatives.

I don’t think a (New) turboprop twin is likely to provide a similar power output to a P-8 for systems unless the Euro countries decide to go ‘all in’ and produce some sort of hybrid/hydrogen wild idea plane, but this would probably take longer in development than, say, the A400M itself did.

Agree, having a platform based on a commercial jetliner like the 737 or A320 has big advantages in terms of maintenance, pilots and capability.

Advantages of a new aircraft is that it could be made more efficient, multirole and suited to new tasks.

It's no longer only about hunting russian subs. Monitoring crisis areas, drug trafficking, refugees, engaging piratery, SAR, quickly moving stuff/ teams, environmental control, more generally: operational flexibility gained importance.


created this picture years ago, times moved quickly

Is their a way redesign this mission taking advantage of UAV advancements?

Planeflyer wrote:

Is their a way redesign this mission taking advantage of UAV advancements?

Partially, but the opinion of the navy is that UAV cannot replace a crewed airplane. When it comes to repetitive monitoring and surveillance, UAV are undoubtedly a good choice. However, an MPA is ultimately more than a flying camera. It can deploy weapons (which Germany doesn't want done by a remote operator). It can react dynamically to events, e. g. whether to take a closer look at a ship or deploy sonobouys. It allows crew to look out with their own eyes, potentially seeing things a camera might miss.

You could do all this through a UAV with appropriate sensors and communication links but (a) the technology is not on the market yet and (b) it's doubtful whether the effort is worth it. Similar to fighter jets; you could theoretically replace them with UAV but all current developments are for crewed variants.

mxaxai wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

Is their a way redesign this mission taking advantage of UAV advancements?

Partially, but the opinion of the navy is that UAV cannot replace a crewed airplane. When it comes to repetitive monitoring and surveillance, UAV are undoubtedly a good choice. However, an MPA is ultimately more than a flying camera. It can deploy weapons (which Germany doesn't want done by a remote operator). It can react dynamically to events, e. g. whether to take a closer look at a ship or deploy sonobouys. It allows crew to look out with their own eyes, potentially seeing things a camera might miss.

You could do all this through a UAV with appropriate sensors and communication links but (a) the technology is not on the market yet and (b) it's doubtful whether the effort is worth it. Similar to fighter jets; you could theoretically replace them with UAV but all current developments are for crewed variants.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread in this context UUVs will also play a big role. They have the persistence that can assist the MPA role and I expect some decent technological movements in this area in coming years.

Ozair wrote:

As I mentioned earlier in the thread in this context UUVs will also play a big role. They have the persistence that can assist the MPA role and I expect some decent technological movements in this area in coming years.

This is where a larger platform with more operators can be an advantage. You can locally manage s flight of UAV from your flying control center.

bt

Another alternative is the proposed Lockheed Martin SC-130J Sea Hercules, a MPA version of the C-130J. The most recent news about it was it became a roll-on, roll-off retrofit kit for existing C-130J's, and could be armed as well.

bikerthai wrote:

Ozair wrote:

As I mentioned earlier in the thread in this context UUVs will also play a big role. They have the persistence that can assist the MPA role and I expect some decent technological movements in this area in coming years.

This is where a larger platform with more operators can be an advantage. You can locally manage s flight of UAV from your flying control center.

bt

I did say UUV, unmanned underwater vehicle, but the general concept should be the same.

ThePointblank wrote:

Another alternative is the proposed Lockheed Martin SC-130J Sea Hercules, a MPA version of the C-130J. The most recent news about it was it became a roll-on, roll-off retrofit kit for existing C-130J's, and could be armed as well.

I don’t see take up of this option unless it is reasonably cheap. From what I can tell from here, https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... needs.html the roll on and off capability is just the mission systems and operator stations. The rest of the hardware, such as radar, MAD boom, outer wing stations and any type of sonar buoy launcher would require dedicated and likely permanent airframe changes.

Ozair wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Ozair wrote:

As I mentioned earlier in the thread in this context UUVs will also play a big role. They have the persistence that can assist the MPA role and I expect some decent technological movements in this area in coming years.

This is where a larger platform with more operators can be an advantage. You can locally manage s flight of UAV from your flying control center.

bt

I did say UUV, unmanned underwater vehicle, but the general concept should be the same.

ThePointblank wrote:

Another alternative is the proposed Lockheed Martin SC-130J Sea Hercules, a MPA version of the C-130J. The most recent news about it was it became a roll-on, roll-off retrofit kit for existing C-130J's, and could be armed as well.

I don’t see take up of this option unless it is reasonably cheap. From what I can tell from here, https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... needs.html the roll on and off capability is just the mission systems and operator stations. The rest of the hardware, such as radar, MAD boom, outer wing stations and any type of sonar buoy launcher would require dedicated and likely permanent airframe changes.

LM refined the concept a bit more:

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 00.article

Basically the only big modification would be the installation of the EO/IR turret on the nose, the MAD boom, and the search radar. Otherwise, the torpedo launchers, and sonobuoy's are dropped off the rear ramp, and the Hellfire and Harpoon missiles use existing pylons on the wings. LM was also exploring how to attach the MAD boom to the aircraft without requiring structural modifications.

Not sure keeping the 60 years old Hercules line open for ever, regardless of operational requirements is a German priority too.

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/150978

The P3C used to have an extensive crew including pilots, radio man, plotters, Taco, observers. Much of this can be automated. Also navigation, data processing and sensors of today are way smaller lighter. I wonder if a NB size aircraft would be required these days. Range / airtime and flexibility seem more important.

Planeflyer wrote:

Is their a way redesign this mission taking advantage of UAV advancements?

Not in the near future, as UAVs still have limitations when operating in peace time, civil controlled airspace. And a lot of the missions of the MPAs are happening in peace time. Like immigration control, fishing control, pollution control,..

That is also why I am not convinced that the P-8 is the best solution, because in those missions there often is a need to fly low and slow to get eyes/sensors on the object of interest.

Well, it’s only ever a matter of time before keesje turns a thread into a ‘bash any American aircraft mentioned’ one. The Luftwaffe of course already is scheduled to get 6 of the J model Hercs over the next year or so (not sure of the delivery status). The truth of the program’s survival is probably a blend between that negative one and this positive one.

https://www.militarytimes.com/off-duty/ ... airlifter/

With the exhausted C-160’s, I would guess it’s inevitable they do order more Hercules. I’ve heard it mentioned though that the C-130 cost per hour to fly is something like $30K, and I’m not sure it is really ideally suited for this mission (or it would have racked up some orders by now). Clearly, the Brits did what I think was the sane decision (P-8) after probably a single PowerPoint presentation from LMT on the SC-130. Lockheed has come up with some wild ideas for Herc derivatives over the years.

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/warship ... 19505.html

seahawk wrote:

Like immigration control, fishing control, pollution control,..

All off which can be done more effectively at high altitude with advance optics and sensor for a wide area sweep. You would drop down on the deck if you detect something that warrant a closer look.

For small waterways it does not make sense, but typical international operations like search and rescue and desaster assessments, where you want to cover a large area quickly, higher and faster is better

bt

bikerthai wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Like immigration control, fishing control, pollution control,..

All off which can be done more effectively at high altitude with advance optics and sensor for a wide area sweep. You would drop down on the deck if you detect something that warrant a closer look.

For small waterways it does not make sense, but typical international operations like search and rescue and desaster assessments, where you want to cover a large area quickly, higher and faster is better

bt

You forget the weather.

texl1649 wrote:

With the exhausted C-160’s, I would guess it’s inevitable they do order more Hercules. I’ve heard it mentioned though that the C-130 cost per hour to fly is something like $30K, and I’m not sure it is really ideally suited for this mission (or it would have racked up some orders by now).

Can't do the missions the C160 was made for because the C130 couldn't do the mission way back when....
However, the A400M is overkill for many missions, and I dont see a 3rd tactical transport type, so C130 might be best if needed.

To curve back on topic, I agree some COTS solution would be best for all involved.

Best regards
Thomas

seahawk wrote:

You forget the weather.

Weather is that great equalizer. Other than the North Sea, though, weather is intermittence and should not dictate the broad goals of the program.

I agree with you, if Germany is only looking at it's immediate waterway, then the smaller aircraft is financially prudent. But if it still desire operate in the international stage during times of needs, the the preferred assets would be a larger platform.

Even if it is a smaller platform, a turbo fan would provide greater flexibility and performance than a turbo prop. Being able to get hi - lo - hi quickly can be of benefit when doing broad area search with intermittent low level events.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

seahawk wrote:

You forget the weather.

Weather is that great equalizer. Other than the North Sea, though, weather is intermittence and should not dictate the broad goals of the program.

I agree with you, if Germany is only looking at it's immediate waterway, then the smaller aircraft is financially prudent. But if it still desire operate in the international stage during times of needs, the the preferred assets would be a larger platform.

Even if it is a smaller platform, a turbo fan would provide greater flexibility and performance than a turbo prop. Being able to get hi - lo - hi quickly can be of benefit when doing broad area search with intermittent low level events.

bt

The plane needs to be able to do both, but it needs to work in the North Sea and it needs to work in the Baltic. A trade-off will have to be made.

texl1649 wrote:

Well, it’s only ever a matter of time before keesje turns a thread into a ‘bash any American aircraft mentioned’ one. The Luftwaffe of course already is scheduled to get 6 of the J model Hercs over the next year or so (not sure of the delivery status). The truth of the program’s survival is probably a blend between that negative one and this positive one.

https://www.militarytimes.com/off-duty/ ... airlifter/

With the exhausted C-160’s, I would guess it’s inevitable they do order more Hercules. I’ve heard it mentioned though that the C-130 cost per hour to fly is something like $30K, and I’m not sure it is really ideally suited for this mission (or it would have racked up some orders by now). Clearly, the Brits did what I think was the sane decision (P-8) after probably a single PowerPoint presentation from LMT on the SC-130. Lockheed has come up with some wild ideas for Herc derivatives over the years.

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/warship ... 19505.html

The US Coast Guard operates their HC-130J's in a maritime patrol role, and is equipped with a EO/IR turret, a surface search radar, and large side windows for observers.

The issue with the British C-130J's are is that their short Herc's are non-standard. Their aircraft are early build aircraft, and aren't fitted with a number of features which would need to be backfitted onto their aircraft. Something about missing a number of major cargo handling features, which makes them unique in the C-130J world.

ThePointblank wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

Well, it’s only ever a matter of time before keesje turns a thread into a ‘bash any American aircraft mentioned’ one. The Luftwaffe of course already is scheduled to get 6 of the J model Hercs over the next year or so (not sure of the delivery status). The truth of the program’s survival is probably a blend between that negative one and this positive one.

https://www.militarytimes.com/off-duty/ ... airlifter/

With the exhausted C-160’s, I would guess it’s inevitable they do order more Hercules. I’ve heard it mentioned though that the C-130 cost per hour to fly is something like $30K, and I’m not sure it is really ideally suited for this mission (or it would have racked up some orders by now). Clearly, the Brits did what I think was the sane decision (P-8) after probably a single PowerPoint presentation from LMT on the SC-130. Lockheed has come up with some wild ideas for Herc derivatives over the years.

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/warship ... 19505.html

The US Coast Guard operates their HC-130J's in a maritime patrol role, and is equipped with a EO/IR turret, a surface search radar, and large side windows for observers.

The issue with the British C-130J's are is that their short Herc's are non-standard. Their aircraft are early build aircraft, and aren't fitted with a number of features which would need to be backfitted onto their aircraft. Something about missing a number of major cargo handling features, which makes them unique in the C-130J world.

I think their early build short frame Hercs are in storage/sold off (two went to the blue angels):

According to our friends over at Flightglobal.com, the RAF intends to operate their 14 C-130J-30 airframes that feature stretched fuselages through 2035, but their short-fuselage C-130J models, known as C-130J C5s, have been placed in storage:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... fat-albert

I really don’t know about the remainder but I doubt they terminate/sell them.

Also, the US Coast Guard Hercs are not in any way similarly outfitted to what a P-8/true MPA would be, from either a sensor suite or weapons perspective.

texl1649 wrote:

Also, the US Coast Guard Hercs are not in any way similarly outfitted to what a P-8/true MPA would be, from either a sensor suite or weapons perspective.

Yes, but the USCG HC-130J's are already equipped with a EO/IR turret, and a belly-mounted multi-mode radar (the IAI EL/M-2022A). The radar is fitted on some P-3C's for two unspecified Asian customers.

And remember that the HC-130J's are a variant of the KC-130J that the Marines use; and the Marines have equipped their KC-130J's for armed overwatch capabilities, with smart bombs and missiles.

texl1649 wrote:

Clearly, the Brits did what I think was the sane decision (P-8) after probably a single PowerPoint presentation from LMT on the SC-130. Lockheed has come up with some wild ideas for Herc derivatives over the years.

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/warship ... 19505.html

Even with what LM are offering I still don’t see a lot of value in a C-130J MPA. If your Air Force/Navy aviation is big enough to require a decent sized MPA then you are big enough to go for a specialized aircraft. Smaller operators are happy with a smaller MPA and generally aren't hunting submarines nor have the ability/desire to re-role a C-130 to multiple tasks. Additionally you really would want separate crews for those two roles. The skill set of hunting submarines is specific enough, even just for the pilot, from cargo ops that the additional training to be certified in both would likely be excessive.

texl1649 wrote:

[I think their early build short frame Hercs are in storage/sold off (two went to the blue angels):

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... fat-albert

I really don’t know about the remainder but I doubt they terminate/sell them.

Bangladesh and Bahrain have acquired ex-RAF C-130 C-5s, I think there might be a couple still available.
https://marshalladg.com/insights-news/m ... rce-c-130j
https://www.defenseworld.net/news/22984 ... ed_Kingdom

Not to poo poo the C-130, but if you are looking for persistent present aloft, wouldn't a business jet would be much more comfortable to operate from than a converted transport?

After all crew comfort do increase crew performance as station time increases.

bt

texl1649 wrote:

Clearly, the Brits did what I think was the sane decision (P-8)

Personally, I believe the UK decision for the P-8A went beyond their current, soon to be past, capability gap. It would not surprise me if as soon as the US Navy fully implement the AAS capability, the UK will order that as well.

Not sure if Germany need that capability. So there is not that additional insentive for them to go for a P-8.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Not to poo poo the C-130, but if you are looking for persistent present aloft, wouldn't a business jet would be much more comfortable to operate from than a converted transport?

After all crew comfort do increase crew performance as station time increases.

bt

Business jets tend to be relatively tight. I can easily walk in an ATR without having to worry about the ceiling, and its 6'3'' height put it on the upper end of the business jet spectrum. The Bombardier Global series features the same height but most other models are smaller. Width is another parameter, large narrowbodies like the P-3, 737 and A320 actually feel very roomy once you stop cramming them full of 6-abreast seat rows. You can walk down the 'aisle' between the operator stations with relative ease. The C-130 is of comparable width, and the ATR and C295 fall somewhere in the middle, with the ATR72 being just slightly larger than the Global.

So I don't think you can say that a bizjet is generally more comfortable.

I was thinking more of the overall noise and vibration environment of a business jet vs a C-130.

Most of the time the operator is sitting down anyway. It's the constant noise and vibration that can wear you down. Never been in a cargo plane to feel how it is. But crew switching from the P-3 to the P-8 did noticed the differences.

bt

steman wrote:

angad84 wrote:

Everyone seems to forget my favourite underdog, the P-1. Loaded with all the disadvantages that have been discussed threadbare here and in other threads, but it's just so damn cool.

The P-1 performed a flying display at the last ILA Air Show in Berlin, two years ago.

Not only at the ILA. It also made a short visit to the base of the German MPA squadron and took some German officers on a round trip over the North Sea. Press reports said, the commanding officer of the German MPA squadron was quite impressed by the aircraft.

https://spotterblog.de/first-landing-of-type/

I hope, Germany will buy the P-1. Seems the best choice to me.

mxaxai wrote:

So I don't think you can say that a bizjet is generally more comfortable.

The people I’ve spoken that have flown in the back of the Hercules told me it is loud as F*** in the cargo-hold, too hot in the front end and freezing towards the rear. Not great for concentrating on a screen for hours on end me thinks.

FrancisBegbie wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

So I don't think you can say that a bizjet is generally more comfortable.

The people I’ve spoken that have flown in the back of the Hercules told me it is loud as F*** in the cargo-hold, too hot in the front end and freezing towards the rear. Not great for concentrating on a screen for hours on end me thinks.

I've heard the same.

texl1649 wrote:

I just can’t fathom Germany ever acquiring a Boeing 7-series anything.

Fluigbereitschaft used to fly 707s

steman wrote:

angad84 wrote:

Everyone seems to forget my favourite underdog, the P-1. Loaded with all the disadvantages that have been discussed threadbare here and in other threads, but it's just so damn cool.

The P-1 performed a flying display at the last ILA Air Show in Berlin, two years ago.
It´s quite a nice compact machine, with those 4 small turbofans. I find it really attractive.
I recall the moderator saying it cost 200 Million Dollars a piece. Not idea how close to reality that is.
It´s probably way too expensive not only to acquire but also to operate and the fact that Japanese designs have never been exported to the West (or exported at all) makes it almost impossible.

I love the bird, but given Airbus and political realities I find it unlikely. Sadly.

New Zealand looked at various options and had previously upgraded and replaced the wings on its P-3Ks. They decided to go with the P-8. Admittedly Germany needs its aircraft more for shorter flights rather than the huge ocean territory NZ has to cover, but I’m sure Germany gets out into the Atlantic often enough to make it worthwhile.
Interesting that NZ replaced 5x P-3 with 4x P-8. Germany could probably drop 1 frame also if desired and still have more capability than it does now (although I think NZ will add another one later and this was to make it appear like a smaller purchase to the public).

Zkpilot wrote:

Interesting that NZ replaced 5x P-3 with 4x P-8. Germany could probably drop 1 frame also if desired and still have more capability than it does now (although I think NZ will add another one later and this was to make it appear like a smaller purchase to the public).

Ours weren't P-3s, but we are replacing 8x Tu-142Ms and 5x Il-38SDs (total 13) with 12 P-8Is. The Tu-142s were replaced one-for-one and the P-8Is are already orders of magnitude more capable, so the loss of one frame from the Il-38 replacement is more than acceptable.

Zkpilot wrote:

(although I think NZ will add another one later and this was to make it appear like a smaller purchase to the public).

I don't see it in my crystal ball. Didn't NZ get some smaller aircrafts do the lesser function? The reliability if the P-8A and the high level of product support available in conjunction with the cooperation with the RAAF should make up the difference with the short fall.

angad84 wrote:

Ours weren't P-3s, but we are replacing 8x Tu-142Ms and 5x Il-38SDs (total 13) with 12 P-8Is. The Tu-142s were replaced one-for-one and the P-8Is are already orders of magnitude more capable, so the loss of one frame from the Il-38 replacement is more than acceptable

Doesn't look like India is satisfied with just a one for one replacement. Aren't they looking to order more than the current 8+4?

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Doesn't look like India is satisfied with just a one for one replacement. Aren't they looking to order more than the current 8+4?

To expand on existing MDA. The existing 8 provide more coverage than the earlier 13. 12 will take that further, and with more P-8Is planned, we will finally have the sort of IOR MDA that we should have had years ago.

bikerthai wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

(although I think NZ will add another one later and this was to make it appear like a smaller purchase to the public).

I don't see it in my crystal ball. Didn't NZ get some smaller aircrafts do the lesser function? The reliability if the P-8A and the high level of product support available in conjunction with the cooperation with the RAAF should make up the difference with the short fall.

angad84 wrote:

Ours weren't P-3s, but we are replacing 8x Tu-142Ms and 5x Il-38SDs (total 13) with 12 P-8Is. The Tu-142s were replaced one-for-one and the P-8Is are already orders of magnitude more capable, so the loss of one frame from the Il-38 replacement is more than acceptable

Doesn't look like India is satisfied with just a one for one replacement. Aren't they looking to order more than the current 8+4?

bt

When announcing the P-8 purchase, the NZ government also made note that they would be looking into smaller aircraft in the future for shorter range MPA work. With time and effort also being spent on looking at UAV options to support patrol functions. No signed off purchases yet, just the P-8s.

bikerthai wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

(although I think NZ will add another one later and this was to make it appear like a smaller purchase to the public).

I don't see it in my crystal ball. Didn't NZ get some smaller aircrafts do the lesser function? The reliability if the P-8A and the high level of product support available in conjunction with the cooperation with the RAAF should make up the difference with the short fall.

angad84 wrote:

Ours weren't P-3s, but we are replacing 8x Tu-142Ms and 5x Il-38SDs (total 13) with 12 P-8Is. The Tu-142s were replaced one-for-one and the P-8Is are already orders of magnitude more capable, so the loss of one frame from the Il-38 replacement is more than acceptable

Doesn't look like India is satisfied with just a one for one replacement. Aren't they looking to order more than the current 8+4?

bt

Yeah they’re looking at UAVs and possibly some smaller aircraft for SAR type short range operations

Ozair wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

[I think their early build short frame Hercs are in storage/sold off (two went to the blue angels):

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... fat-albert

I really don’t know about the remainder but I doubt they terminate/sell them.

Bangladesh and Bahrain have acquired ex-RAF C-130 C-5s, I think there might be a couple still available.
https://marshalladg.com/insights-news/m ... rce-c-130j
https://www.defenseworld.net/news/22984 ... ed_Kingdom

Going wildly off topic.....

Out of 10 RAF Hercules C5s:

2 are still in active use by the RAF (ZH888, ZH889)
5 have gone or are going to the Bangladesh AF
2 have gone to the Bahrain Defence Force
1 has gone to the USN (Blue Angels)

Wild idea, yes, but could the Celera 1000 possibly be adapted for this role? The baseline uses a German power plant, and while it’s being built/developed by an American company, there’s no existing assembly line, and it is a bit intriguing if a derivative could work.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... eaks-cover

Though primarily aimed at civilian and commercial operators, Otto's new website also highlights the potential for the Celera 500L to use its long-range and high fuel economy to support military missions, including transporting personnel and cargo, as well as conducting intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions. A version of the aircraft, possibly unmanned, equipped with any number of sensor suites could be an impressive persistent surveillance and communications relay platform able to orbit over particular areas for very long periods of time and cover a wide swath of the battlefield from its high perch. It could also be able to reposition itself quickly and transit to its tasking area at jet-like speeds. We highlighted the potential military and surveillance utility, especially in an unmanned format, that variants of the Celera 500L could provide in our past coverage, as well.