Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
mxaxai
Topic Author
Posts: 1762
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Sun Jun 21, 2020 2:29 pm

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.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3295
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Sun Jun 21, 2020 2:39 pm

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
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
trex8
Posts: 5542
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Sun Jun 21, 2020 11:02 pm

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.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5082
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Mon Jun 22, 2020 3:37 am

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.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Mon Jun 22, 2020 9:33 am

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.
 
mxaxai
Topic Author
Posts: 1762
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Mon Jun 22, 2020 10:30 am

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.
 
Flying-Tiger
Posts: 4033
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 1999 5:35 am

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Mon Jun 22, 2020 10:32 am

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.
Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A343/346, A359, A380,AT4,AT7,B712, B732/3/4/5/7/8/9,B742/4,B752/3, B762/763,B772/77W,CR2/7/9/K,ER3/4,E70/75/90/95, F50/70/100,M11,L15,SF3,S20, AR8/1, 142/143,... 330.860 miles and counting.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Mon Jun 22, 2020 4:20 pm

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 ;)

Image
E.g. with two TP400 sized engines and a APTU
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
texl1649
Posts: 1233
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Mon Jun 22, 2020 6:24 pm

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.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5082
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Mon Jun 22, 2020 9:18 pm

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.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5082
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Tue Jun 23, 2020 3:03 am

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?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Tue Jun 23, 2020 5:51 am

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.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Tue Jun 23, 2020 2:54 pm

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.

Image
created this picture years ago, times moved quickly ;)
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1468
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Tue Jun 23, 2020 2:59 pm

Is their a way redesign this mission taking advantage of UAV advancements?
 
mxaxai
Topic Author
Posts: 1762
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Tue Jun 23, 2020 3:29 pm

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.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5082
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Tue Jun 23, 2020 9:19 pm

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.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3295
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Tue Jun 23, 2020 10:42 pm

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
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3420
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Tue Jun 23, 2020 10:45 pm

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.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5082
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:55 pm

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.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3420
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:49 am

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.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Wed Jun 24, 2020 5:56 am

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.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Wed Jun 24, 2020 6:29 am

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.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1233
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Wed Jun 24, 2020 11:59 am

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
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3295
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Wed Jun 24, 2020 12:11 pm

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
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Wed Jun 24, 2020 12:28 pm

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.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12756
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:05 pm

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
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3295
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:42 pm

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
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Wed Jun 24, 2020 3:45 pm

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.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3420
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:45 am

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.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1233
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:54 am

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.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1233
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:56 am

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.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3420
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:22 am

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.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5082
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:23 am

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
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3295
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:32 pm

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
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3295
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:41 pm

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
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
mxaxai
Topic Author
Posts: 1762
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:30 pm

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.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3295
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:50 pm

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
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
FW200
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:35 pm

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Thu Jun 25, 2020 11:06 pm

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.
 
FrancisBegbie
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 7:22 am

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Fri Jun 26, 2020 12:41 pm

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.
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1464
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Germany cancels P-3C modernisation; looking for replacement

Sat Jun 27, 2020 3:49 am

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Slug71 and 15 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos