Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Germany approved to buy five Boeing P-8A maritime patrol aircraft
The US State Department has approved a possible Foreign Military Sale of five Boeing P-8A maritime patrol aircraft to Germany for an estimated cost of $1.77 billion.
duboka wrote:Are there any other updates on this topic, or is this a clear sign, that Germany is going to buy the P-8A?
duboka wrote:Are there any other updates on this topic, or is this a clear sign, that Germany is going to buy the P-8A?
However, Germany is worried that the P-1 might not be able to obtain a military type certification within five years. This will push the operational date beyond 2025.
duboka wrote:http://alert5.com/2020/09/08/germany-drops-kawasaki-p-1-from-selection-list/
I didn't knew that the P-1 was dropped by Germany.However, Germany is worried that the P-1 might not be able to obtain a military type certification within five years. This will push the operational date beyond 2025.
Q from members of parliament:
To what extent did the German government consider the possibility of procuring new maritime patrol aircraft before the [rewinging] project began or during the project?
a)Did the Federal Government consider the procurement of Boeing P-8 maritime patrol aircraft, comparable to the efforts of other NATO member states, and if so, why, or why not?
b) - e) ... of Kawasaki P-1 / C-295 MPA / RAS 72 / a new domestic development ...
A from the ministry of defence:
The procurement of new systems was examined before the start of the project as part of a study. Subsequently, an economic feasibility study in conjunction with the overall planning assessment identified and adopted the solution approach of rewing as the one with the fewest operational constraints. In the course of the early termination of the [rewinging] project, work began on various options for closing the capability gap caused by the decommissioning of the P 3C Orion weapon system, probably from 2025 until the realization of the Franco-German Maritime Airborne Warfare System (MAWS) development project in 2032 at the earliest.
These are currently being evaluated as part of an economic feasibility study. With the exception of an excluded domestic development and the Japanese Kawasaki P-1, the three listed systems P-8A Poseidon, RAS 72 and C-295 MPA are also being considered, since they are generally assessed as suitable for maintaining anti-submarine warfare and maritime reconnaissance capabilities. Dependencies on the MAWS are taken into account. However, a precise analysis of the suitability of individual systems will not be available until the study is completed.
The Kawasaki P-1 option entails considerable time and legal risks due to the lack of cooperation with Japan to date, so this option was not considered further as an interim solution.
bikerthai wrote:It also make sense if Germany is buying the P-8A as an interim solution to bridge the gap to the A320 MMA.
If and when the A320 MMA deploys, Germany can more easily off-load the P-8A to other NATO allies.
bt
texl1649 wrote:bikerthai wrote:It also make sense if Germany is buying the P-8A as an interim solution to bridge the gap to the A320 MMA.
If and when the A320 MMA deploys, Germany can more easily off-load the P-8A to other NATO allies.
bt
LOL, maybe if they are adequately maintained!
vr773 wrote:France confirmed today that they are offering Germany to lease 4 ATL2 ASW/MPA from them until MAWS is operational. This is to prevent the purchase of 5 P-8A from the US and to increase German-Franco cooperation.
https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/la-france-propose-de-preter-quatre-atlantique-2-lallemagne-0
mxaxai wrote:duboka wrote:Are there any other updates on this topic, or is this a clear sign, that Germany is going to buy the P-8A?
This just means that the US would allow Germany to buy P-8A through the FMS program. Which is a first step for any tender that might include the P-8A.
On the German side, there's neither a decision nor an allocated budget for the P-3C replacement yet. Perhaps more relevant, there are no plans to present the expected budget to the German parliament for approval prior to the elections in September this year.
bikerthai wrote:Did the German Heavy Lift program ever got through FMS approval?
bt
bikerthai wrote:vr773 wrote:France confirmed today that they are offering Germany to lease 4 ATL2 ASW/MPA from them until MAWS is operational. This is to prevent the purchase of 5 P-8A from the US and to increase German-Franco cooperation.
https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/la-france-propose-de-preter-quatre-atlantique-2-lallemagne-0
Smart move.
bt
744SPX wrote:bikerthai wrote:vr773 wrote:France confirmed today that they are offering Germany to lease 4 ATL2 ASW/MPA from them until MAWS is operational. This is to prevent the purchase of 5 P-8A from the US and to increase German-Franco cooperation.
https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/la-france-propose-de-preter-quatre-atlantique-2-lallemagne-0
Smart move.
bt
Yes.
What are the chances of Germany going this route over the P-8?
ATL2 will certainly be a lot more cost effective as a bridge to MAWS.
The degree of fulfillment of the operational requirements of the C-295 MPA weapon system from Airbus Defence and Space Spain, which is still being developed, is far lower than that of the P-3C ORION in terms of range, flight duration, the required speed profile and armament. Considering temporary use for an interim period, the degree of fulfillment would be sufficient in principle for Germany, but not available in time to avoid a temporary capability gap.
The C-295 MSA weapon system, on the other hand, is unsuitable due to its lack of a self-protection system and non-integrated military equipment.
The required capabilities of Boeing's P-8A POSEIDON weapon system are basically the same as 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 is concluded before the summer break in 2021.
keesje wrote:The 737 and A320 are excellent at doing 2-3 hour flights at M.8, 40k ft, 6 times a day for 25 yrs.
keesje wrote:Mediterranean kind of EU and NATO operations,
bikerthai wrote:keesje wrote:Mediterranean kind of EU and NATO operations,
For migrant patrol, the P-8 would be overkill.
But consider current US P-8 operations.
They fly from Italy to the coast of Syria or to Crimea. Typical flight time is 2-3 hrs there, do their snooping, then 2-3 hrs back. That's 5-6 hrs transition time for a jet with probably 8hrs total flight time.
How much longer would the flight time be on a turboprop? Sure you have great loiter time, but how much actual work are you doing with the extended flight time?
bt
keesje wrote:3 hours from home.
acecrackshot wrote:US/UK/other user doctrine/training
bikerthai wrote:Keesje,
Good chart. The 18 and 20 hrs endurance are impressive. Seems to me though having that endurance that may be used maybe once or twice in ten years may be another form of overdesigning.
bt
keesje wrote:Not when I was there (early nineties). We did lots of missions 2-3 hours from home. Transits at 400 kts medium level (an Orion isn't slow), cruising 200 kts at low level. From KEF and CUR too. If you are e.g. cruising the Mediterranean for smugglers, refugees that's not a high speed hit and run from 10k ft. Where did you get twice in a decade feedback?
keesje wrote:In reality the USN also had little choice when the P-3C's started wearing out.
bikerthai wrote:For everyday patrol, you don't need the 18 hrs flight time. That would be too much for the crew.
bt
mxaxai wrote:bikerthai wrote:For everyday patrol, you don't need the 18 hrs flight time. That would be too much for the crew.
bt
The P-3C in operation Atalanta off Somalia flew missions up to 14h, I was told. They also said that such missions were very taxing on the crew, very difficult to stay focused towards the end of the flight. An average mission would usually be scheduled shorter to give the crews enough time to rest between flights.
keesje wrote:nothing like the functional seats plotters, operators on the Orion have to spend a day on in a noisy cabin, fifties toilet etc. A future aircraft would be required to meet todays working conditions and functional requirements
seahawk wrote:European solution would be in the interest of the taxpayer and would fill the needs much better.
acecrackshot wrote:little unrealistic to say that any given mission the level of extreme endurance is unreasonable.
seahawk wrote:The P-8 will bring brownie points with the US administration so it will be bought, even though a European solution would be in the interest of the taxpayer and would fill the needs much better.
bikerthai wrote:seahawk wrote:European solution would be in the interest of the taxpayer and would fill the needs much better.
The European solution, A320 MPA, is still on the table. The Atlantique has too much risk. The P-8A will also pressure the the French to commit to on time delivery of the MPA.
bt
bikerthai wrote:seahawk wrote:European solution would be in the interest of the taxpayer and would fill the needs much better.
The European solution, A320 MPA, is still on the table. The Atlantique has too much risk. The P-8A will also pressure the the French to commit to on time delivery of the MPA.
bt
seahawk wrote:Germany needs an asset that is cheap to operate and suitable for helping refugees and controlling environmental protection laws.
bikerthai wrote:But there is cheap, and there is value for the price. And the risk of going cheap this time is the potential of falling in to a money pit while still not filling that capability gap.
bt
seahawk wrote:bikerthai wrote:seahawk wrote:European solution would be in the interest of the taxpayer and would fill the needs much better.
The European solution, A320 MPA, is still on the table. The Atlantique has too much risk. The P-8A will also pressure the the French to commit to on time delivery of the MPA.
bt
That is why the stop-gap solution should be cheap. I think converted ATRs with a strong focus on environmental protection duties would be the way to go. Germany needs an asset that is cheap to operate and suitable for helping refugees and controlling environmental protection laws. Those are the important tasks, not some Cold War revival. But I am positive that the procurement will be held up until Mrs. Baerbock is in power and then this will not happen, as the Greens will shrink the armed forces and reduce the spending on the defence.
bikerthai wrote:seahawk wrote:Germany needs an asset that is cheap to operate and suitable for helping refugees and controlling environmental protection laws.
Is NATO responsible for refuge patrol? Have Germany P-3 been patrolling the Mediterranean?
bt