European Multirole MPA Replacement, C-500 Beagle Concept >2030

keesje · Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:47 pm

The long term MPA requirement for replacing P3's and Atlantiques for multi role patrol / ASW aircraft has come up several times in the recent decades.
https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... ement.html

It seems the smaller ATR and CN-295 miss the range and payload for replacing those aircraft, while 737 / A320 are not optimal in terms of costs, low level performance flexibility & endurance. Those platforms are optimized to be fast and efficient at at 40.000ft.

The P-1 is a dedicated MPA and seems to have the superior specs, that come with a purposely developed aircraft. Putting your faith with Japan is something apparently avoided so far by all nations.

I looked up numbers of existing MPA offerings and estimated some. The specs seem far apart. A decade ago I did a concept, now looked at it again and concluded the wing/fuel capacity didn't match up, choose the proven TP400 as baseline and refined the ATPU concept. Requirements changed significantly since the cold war. I used the working name C-500 Beagle.

Any advises on the basic specifications?

N328KF · Wed Aug 12, 2020 6:35 pm

This is going nowhere. Many prospective customers have already selected the P-8, and for the rest, they can get the P-8 almost immediately, and at a reasonable cost.

texl1649 · Wed Aug 12, 2020 10:39 pm

What is the news here, past 2018? What Euro’s are ready to throw billions at an A320 or A220 or CN/ATR MPA today?

keesje · Thu Aug 13, 2020 7:00 am

N328KF wrote:
This is going nowhere. Many prospective customers have already selected the P-8, and for the rest, they can get the P-8 almost immediately, and at a reasonable cost.

The P8 doesn't offer the endurance and low level performance required and offered by the P3c & Atlantique 2. And is heavy & costly to operate. The 737 is a a 53 year old design, delivery from 2030 and operate for 40 years would nicely accomplish a centennial. But that doesn't seem a high priority.

Price can include training, spares etc, but the cost e.g. the RAF paid for the first nine P-8A's 2016 costed £3 billion ($3.9 billion). And I guess just like other Air Forces, the Europeans might like to operate home build and customized aircraft, spend the money at home. At least the Germans and French, but I think the others too if possible.

The technology and expertise is available and the industry (Airbus Military, Safran, Thales, ATR, Rolls, Dassault) could use a program to keep on track, independent technologically and benefit from current programs.

https://twitter.com/SAFRAN/status/55864 ... 96/photo/1

tommy1808 · Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:19 am

N328KF wrote:
and at a reasonable cost.

on the microeconomics scale, sure. But on the macroeconomic scale .... maybe not.

best regards
Thomas

mxaxai · Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:02 am

keesje wrote:
Price can include training, spares etc, but the cost e.g. the RAF paid for the first nine P-8A's 2016 costed £3 billion ($3.9 billion). And I guess just like other Air Forces, the Europeans might like to operate home build and customized aircraft, spend the money at home. At least the Germans and French, but I think the others too if possible.

Outside of France, Germany and potentially Spain and Sweden, the rest of the EU is more than happy to spend money abroad. If a country doesn't have their own aviation industry they couldn't care less about the foreign country from which they buy their equipment.

CX747 · Thu Aug 13, 2020 1:37 pm

P-8 works just fine.

keesje · Thu Aug 13, 2020 3:15 pm

CX747 wrote:
P-8 works just fine.

mxaxai wrote:
keesje wrote:
Price can include training, spares etc, but the cost e.g. the RAF paid for the first nine P-8A's 2016 costed £3 billion ($3.9 billion). And I guess just like other Air Forces, the Europeans might like to operate home build and customized aircraft, spend the money at home. At least the Germans and French, but I think the others too if possible.

Outside of France, Germany and potentially Spain and Sweden, the rest of the EU is more than happy to spend money abroad. If a country doesn't have their own aviation industry they couldn't care less about the foreign country from which they buy their equipment.

I think in Europe the Aerospace supply chain is spread out over countries more than you suggest Spain, UK, Portugal, Belgium, Italy, Netherlands, Scandinavia all have their first tier suppliers building assemblies / systems for the assembly lines in Germany, UK, Italy, France, Spain. And also some US states and Canada.

Here's a sketch of a three engined TP400 power Multirole MPA.

keesje

CX747 wrote:
P-8 works just fine.

I think the US Navy could select either the fifties Orions from a to be rebuild FAL, or a the 1967 Boeing P-8 737 airliner.
With Congress, industry lobbies, states and committees all over them, and many Orions aging rapidly, they selected the best.
And deal with the limited endurance, payload and high costs. The required tankers might have been seen as an "advantage" by influencers.

texl1649 · Thu Aug 13, 2020 3:38 pm

Keesje I realize you will forever disparage any US acquisition/aircraft but again you've really provided no information here as to what is driving any putative renewed consideration of a 'domestic' MPA right now. You've managed to imply, with zero sources, that Euro countries want to spend money on something to preserve/help their aerospace industrial base, but again I think if this were something being bandied about it would be substantiated by some sort of news article/blogger.

I know you're great at creating images of notional planes but I don't think this one is being considered at all, and please advise if you have some sort of source for it.

It's not the age of the underlying structure that matters here, just as it wasn't the case with the Nimrod for instance, it's the mission/capabilities/ease of training/support that does. Moving to the 'fast' 737 from the Electra made sense from a lot of perspectives to the USN. The Nimrod and Orion21 were just not particularly competitive. Further, it's basically a unicorn; the rare military procurement program where it is selling for less than predicted; presently under $150MM each.

We could compare total support/purchase costs on different programs (perhaps the A400M?) but really it's not unaffordable and the speed/weight do provide greater surveillance/capabilities per given hour as well.

Happy to discuss a real program, but the 'C-500' is about as real as the Iranian stealth fighter, imho.

keesje · Thu Aug 13, 2020 4:00 pm

texl1649 wrote:
Keesje I realize you will forever disparage any US acquisition/aircraft but again you've really provided no information here as to what is driving any putative renewed consideration of a 'domestic' MPA right now. You've managed to imply, with zero sources, that Euro countries want to spend money on something to preserve/help their aerospace industrial base

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... 02%20(ATL2).

It's called the MAWS program, Airbus is trying to buy time for the Germans as we speak.. Like the US Navy, the Euro air forces are pressured by worn out aircraft maintenance issues. You put can put on new sensors and processors, screen and antenna's, but the requirements changed. Replacing wings, fuselages, even the most opportunistic, short term beancounters notice it..

https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/ ... programme/

texl1649, of course I hope you can give some feedback on design requirements and opportunities

I think there is no suitable available, specs for a A320MPA won't be much better..

CX747 · Thu Aug 13, 2020 5:30 pm

P-8 works just fine. That or re-worked P-3s if you desire a different answer to the question.

texl1649 · Thu Aug 13, 2020 6:28 pm

keesje wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
Keesje I realize you will forever disparage any US acquisition/aircraft but again you've really provided no information here as to what is driving any putative renewed consideration of a 'domestic' MPA right now. You've managed to imply, with zero sources, that Euro countries want to spend money on something to preserve/help their aerospace industrial base

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... 02%20(ATL2).

It's called the MAWS program, Airbus is trying to buy time for the Germans as we speak.. Like the US Navy, the Euro air forces are pressured by worn out aircraft maintenance issues. You put can put on new sensors and processors, screen and antenna's, but the requirements changed. Replacing wings, fuselages, even the most opportunistic, short term beancounters notice it..

https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/ ... programme/

texl1649, of course I hope you can give some feedback on design requirements and opportunities I think there is no suitable available, specs for a A320MPA won't be much better..

Ah, so your second link, finally, is to an article from this year.

“A gap in capabilities resulting from the elimination of the P-3C Orion cannot be accepted,” Germany’s defence ministry said in mid-June. A market survey “that takes into account all platforms available on the market” was under way, it added, noting that this activity would “assess all interdependencies on the Franco-German [MAWS] co-operation project”.

“We are fully committed to provide an alternative solution [to Germany’s P-3Cs], and to stay a leader in the MAWS project, to ensure that our customer will select our proposal based on the A320,” Airbus Defence & Space head of tanker and derivatives programmes Didier Plantecoste tells FlightGlobal.

“We are articulating a proposal to Germany, to answer their need for maritime patrol capability,” he says, while adding: “We would like to protect the MAWS programme.”

Despite the challenges posed by Berlin’s interim requirement, Plantecoste says: “The MAWS project is more alive than ever. We see more important momentum in our discussion with all the parties, and are looking to be involved in a new development phase, which for us should start next year.

“If we do not succeed in having France and Germany together, we will not be able to develop such a capability,” Plantecoste cautions. “A maritime patrol aircraft of that size is something requiring energy, and to be viable we need a minimum number of aircraft. For that, we need absolutely to build around France and Germany, but also potentially in the next step, why not have Spain, or Canada, or others, join?”

While Germany’s P-3C mission system enhancement project has been abandoned, a rewinging contract placed with Lockheed and Airbus in July 2015 will continue. The European company has already completed work on two aircraft at its Manching site near Munich.

So Airbus is moving forward with Re-winging the German P-3C’s, and your expectation is that this unfunded program could suddenly be funded over the next few years by the Germans who have steadfastly refused to increase defense spending thus far. It’s great that Airbus would like to provide an alternative but I don’t see any evidence that this is going to be paid for by the Germans. Further, it sounds like Airbus doesn’t want to propose a smaller/P-3/C-500 or whatever sized turboprop solution, but rather sees the answer as...an A320/737 class aircraft.

The Germans have so many readiness problems it’s laughable they’d try to develop a new MPA with France for the sake of national pride (for an MPA type??) whilst also attempting to sell off the remnant of their A400M commitment and not improving other mission capable rates.

744SPX · Thu Aug 13, 2020 7:08 pm

A stock P-3 set a speed record back in 1970 of 501 mph, and that is without the much more efficient 6 or 8 blade props available now. It has far better acceleration than a 737, better loiter time, and its basically just as fast; with new props it would be. The only reason the P-8 won the competition (which it should have lost to the Orion 21) is because of economies of scale and likely some favoritism to Boeing after Lockheed's F-35 win. P-8 was the worst decision ever for a maritime patrol aircraft.

keesje · Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:58 pm

744SPX wrote:
A stock P-3 set a speed record back in 1970 of 501 mph, and that is without the much more efficient 6 or 8 blade props available now. It has far better acceleration than a 737, better loiter time, and its basically just as fast; with new props it would be. The only reason the P-8 won the competition (which it should have lost to the Orion 21) is because of economies of scale and likely some favoritism to Boeing after Lockheed's F-35 win. P-8 was the worst decision ever for a maritime patrol aircraft.

The P3C was produced until 1990. So it was a fifties design, saved on blueprints, with Production technology typical for 50’s 60’s factories/ assembly lines.. So the Navy could select that or the mass produced 737. Was it even possible for the Navy to the require a 15 hour loiter time and a 30t fuel/ payload from most runways? Was there a third option? The P3 production/ supply chain evaporated 20 years earlier. Sounds like a sign-here.

Looking at basic specicification of the different MPA’s , I grew impressed by the Kawasaki P1. Clearly a modern clean sheet design.
- low wing loading for efficient low speed, low level loitering
- big wing area facilitating lots of fuel
- great endurance (I estimated based on payload, fuel capacity, fuel burn),
- large weapons bay,
- great load capacity,
- big cockpit windows,
- permanent multi mode radar 360 AESA coverage,
- engine redundancy around V1 and above the Pacific.

https://acecombat.fandom.com/wiki/Kawasaki_P-1

I tried to include some of these USP’s in the clean sheet Beagle design, which is a long range Atlantique/P3-C class aircraft, able to do high / fast transits too, like an A400M.

texl1649 · Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:56 pm

The MAWS letter of intent from 2018 was supposed to lead to a specification by mid-2019.

3 / Future Maritime Airborne Warfare System (MAWS)

The main missions of the maritime patrol are the underwater fight and the anti-ship fight. At present, the capability is based on long-range aircraft with a combat system based on a suite of sensors (radar, electronic warfare, optronic sensors, magnetic anomaly detectors, buoys), weapons (torpedoes, anti-ship missiles ...) and tactical communications / data links.

The French capability is based on 18 Atlantic 2 aircraft (Dassault Aviation) now being upgraded. Since 2006, the German maritime patrol force has been based on eight P3 Orion aircraft (Lockheed Martin) manufactured in the 1980s.

The meetings held at the "working level" showed a similarity of the operational needs, the calendars, and the general philosophy.

3.1 What is the purpose of the Maritime Airborne Warfare System - MAWS Letter of Intent?

• France and Germany must both replace their maritime patrol systems by 2030.

• The letter of intent materializes and confirms the willingness of both ministries to engage in this cooperation.

• The objective is to study the conditions for the development of a European solution to have an autonomous and efficient maritime patrol capability in Europe.

3.2 What are the next steps?

• The signing of the Letter of Intent will allow us to prepare a technical arrangement covering the design phase by mid-2019.

• We now need to jointly conduct the system architecture analyses.

• It will be articulated not only around a new inhabited platform (successor for France of the ATL2), but also capacities offered by other systems such as the European MALE drone.

3.3 Has an industrial organization been decided?

• The choice of an industrial architecture will be made only after the completion of system architecture studies.

• It will be based on the skills of the major European contractors.

• Competence will be as in the other programs our common thread in these choices.

3.4 Is the project open to other partners?

• Our cooperation logic aims to open our programs to other partners.

• However, it is important to consolidate a Franco-German approach, facilitating the subsequent analysis steps, as we propose for other projects.

• In this context, we study in a concerted manner what could be an observer status in such projects to facilitate subsequent integrations.

As I stated, the Germans basically are unserious about funding this.

keesje · Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:11 pm

texl1649 wrote:
The MAWS letter of intent from 2018 was supposed to lead to a specification by mid-2019.

3 / Future Maritime Airborne Warfare System (MAWS)

The main missions of the maritime patrol are the underwater fight and the anti-ship fight. At present, the capability is based on long-range aircraft with a combat system based on a suite of sensors (radar, electronic warfare, optronic sensors, magnetic anomaly detectors, buoys), weapons (torpedoes, anti-ship missiles ...) and tactical communications / data links.

The French capability is based on 18 Atlantic 2 aircraft (Dassault Aviation) now being upgraded. Since 2006, the German maritime patrol force has been based on eight P3 Orion aircraft (Lockheed Martin) manufactured in the 1980s.

The meetings held at the "working level" showed a similarity of the operational needs, the calendars, and the general philosophy.

3.1 What is the purpose of the Maritime Airborne Warfare System - MAWS Letter of Intent?

• France and Germany must both replace their maritime patrol systems by 2030.

• The letter of intent materializes and confirms the willingness of both ministries to engage in this cooperation.

• The objective is to study the conditions for the development of a European solution to have an autonomous and efficient maritime patrol capability in Europe.

3.2 What are the next steps?

• The signing of the Letter of Intent will allow us to prepare a technical arrangement covering the design phase by mid-2019.

• We now need to jointly conduct the system architecture analyses.

• It will be articulated not only around a new inhabited platform (successor for France of the ATL2), but also capacities offered by other systems such as the European MALE drone.

3.3 Has an industrial organization been decided?

• The choice of an industrial architecture will be made only after the completion of system architecture studies.

• It will be based on the skills of the major European contractors.

• Competence will be as in the other programs our common thread in these choices.

3.4 Is the project open to other partners?

• Our cooperation logic aims to open our programs to other partners.

• However, it is important to consolidate a Franco-German approach, facilitating the subsequent analysis steps, as we propose for other projects.

• In this context, we study in a concerted manner what could be an observer status in such projects to facilitate subsequent integrations.

As I stated, the Germans basically are unserious about funding this.

The project is very alive in recent weeks, after the Germans decided to set an end date on the Orion’s and stop modifications. I expect some CN295s as interim, which seem a good idea for the Baltic Sea and North Sea anyway. The Brits sending a P8 to look for some Zodiac’s along the Southcoast doesn’t seem very effective or efficient.

744SPX · Fri Aug 14, 2020 5:15 am

keesje wrote:
744SPX wrote:
A stock P-3 set a speed record back in 1970 of 501 mph, and that is without the much more efficient 6 or 8 blade props available now. It has far better acceleration than a 737, better loiter time, and its basically just as fast; with new props it would be. The only reason the P-8 won the competition (which it should have lost to the Orion 21) is because of economies of scale and likely some favoritism to Boeing after Lockheed's F-35 win. P-8 was the worst decision ever for a maritime patrol aircraft.

The P3C was produced until 1990. So it was a fifties design, saved on blueprints, with Production technology typical for 50’s 60’s factories/ assembly lines.. So the Navy could select that or the mass produced 737. Was it even possible for the Navy to the require a 15 hour loiter time and a 30t fuel/ payload from most runways? Was there a third option? The P3 production/ supply chain evaporated 20 years earlier. Sounds like a sign-here.

Looking at basic specicification of the different MPA’s , I grew impressed by the Kawasaki P1. Clearly a modern clean sheet design.
- low wing loading for efficient low speed, low level loitering
- big wing area facilitating lots of fuel
- great endurance (I estimated based on payload, fuel capacity, fuel burn),
- large weapons bay,
- great load capacity,
- big cockpit windows,
- permanent multi mode radar 360 AESA coverage,
- engine redundancy around V1 and above the Pacific.

https://acecombat.fandom.com/wiki/Kawasaki_P-1

I tried to include some of these USP’s in the clean sheet Beagle design, which is a long range Atlantique/P3-C class aircraft, able to do high / fast transits too, like an A400M.

Definitely, the P-1 is the best maritime patrol platform out there right now, but I would certainly like to see a turboprop competitor using current tech. Most people -particularly those with the purse-strings- are just too ignorant when it comes to turboprops, unfortunately. It really is the ideal engine type for maritime patrol aircraft.

johns624 · Fri Aug 14, 2020 1:17 pm

I've read that with the sensors installed, that the P8 doesn't need to be at as low a level as older platforms.
Also, with how few MPA countries buy, building a new, clean sheet design makes absolutely no sense. As far as the P8 being a 1960s design, the 737 has changed so much that it isn't.

texl1649 · Fri Aug 14, 2020 3:30 pm

744SPX wrote:
keesje wrote:
744SPX wrote:
A stock P-3 set a speed record back in 1970 of 501 mph, and that is without the much more efficient 6 or 8 blade props available now. It has far better acceleration than a 737, better loiter time, and its basically just as fast; with new props it would be. The only reason the P-8 won the competition (which it should have lost to the Orion 21) is because of economies of scale and likely some favoritism to Boeing after Lockheed's F-35 win. P-8 was the worst decision ever for a maritime patrol aircraft.

The P3C was produced until 1990. So it was a fifties design, saved on blueprints, with Production technology typical for 50’s 60’s factories/ assembly lines.. So the Navy could select that or the mass produced 737. Was it even possible for the Navy to the require a 15 hour loiter time and a 30t fuel/ payload from most runways? Was there a third option? The P3 production/ supply chain evaporated 20 years earlier. Sounds like a sign-here.

Looking at basic specicification of the different MPA’s , I grew impressed by the Kawasaki P1. Clearly a modern clean sheet design.
- low wing loading for efficient low speed, low level loitering
- big wing area facilitating lots of fuel
- great endurance (I estimated based on payload, fuel capacity, fuel burn),
- large weapons bay,
- great load capacity,
- big cockpit windows,
- permanent multi mode radar 360 AESA coverage,
- engine redundancy around V1 and above the Pacific.

https://acecombat.fandom.com/wiki/Kawasaki_P-1

I tried to include some of these USP’s in the clean sheet Beagle design, which is a long range Atlantique/P3-C class aircraft, able to do high / fast transits too, like an A400M.

Definitely, the P-1 is the best maritime patrol platform out there right now, but I would certainly like to see a turboprop competitor using current tech. Most people -particularly those with the purse-strings- are just too ignorant when it comes to turboprops, unfortunately. It really is the ideal engine type for maritime patrol aircraft.

The P-1 is certainly an option for the Germans/French. The Japanese spent considerable sums marketing it to them/flying one around Europe. As discussed up in the thread a ways, I believe there is a language/training issue, but nothing that couldn't be overcome with the export reforms in Japan. I've also seen no news on it's prospects here since about this time in 2019.

Keesje has nakedly speculated the Germans are in fact about to commit funding to move beyond the LOI with a 'domestic' program, essentially with Airbus (which with development would cost at least twice what a P-8 buy would entail, likely quadruple after delays etc based on the A400M experience: the comparatively simple task of building a new turboprop cargo plane took the same government/commercial entities around 40 years from conception to substantively in-service fleet, with the net impact on Airbus being losses around $20 billion or more.)

The P-1 alternatively would make a lot more sense imho, even with some sort of license work/benefit for local industries, if the Franco/Germans are serious about not wanting the P-8 and are willing to pay more to do so. I've again just not seen any intent by the Germans to actually commit to replace the P-3's they're re-winging now toward 2030. They have zero concern about latest technology or reliability, certainly, and Covid has damaged many trade/tax/budgets, including their own.

keesje · Fri Aug 14, 2020 3:50 pm

Looking at the specs as presented in the OP, I tried to take some of the strong points of the MPA's available. Critical factors for an good MPA in my opinion seem to be wing loading (for low level operations), endurance, ability to transit fast, flexibility / bays to house a variety of (future) loads.

I assumed the 11 man crews I experienced on the P3-C (navigator, communication, plotters, TACO, observers etc.) aren't required anymore.

Also acceptable working conditions on (very) long flights (ever taken a leak on a P-3..) changed. Automation, information gathering, processing power and information transfer, networking are incomparable to 30 years ago.

No less the operational environment, we could only warn, coordinate the hell out of smugglers, or launch a Harpoon (never happened). Terrorism, migrations, hijackings, smugglers, piracy and the way those are equipped, organized, amed, it just ain't the same as during the cold war. We better adjust, be prepared.

texl1649 · Fri Aug 14, 2020 8:48 pm

Yet again that's all just speculation as to what it might look like to develop/certify a plane/suite for a niche mission for 3-6 countries and a production run of around 20-30 aircraft. Heck, even if you want to project export sales and double the production run to 50 aircraft, does this make sense when sane alternatives like the P-1 and P-8 are readily available?

Development cost alone would range, I'd guess, 5-8 billion euro's, assuming some common avionics/landing gear with the A400 and TP400 engines could be recycled. The TP400 has been what, a $5 billion program on it's own?

Slug71 · Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:28 pm

My money would be on the A320 M3

RJMAZ · Sat Aug 15, 2020 7:00 am

I think Airbus will develop the A320XLR very soon. The passenger market will drive the demand for it. It will have the enlarged centre tank and most of the parts developed for the A321XLR will become standard. Empty weight might only increase by a couple percent but capability would increase by 20+%

Airbus can then decide how far they can take the A320 fuselage length up to the full 101t MTOW of the A321XLR. With a single ACT and the 101t MTOW the range of the A320XLR would be 5500nm with a typical long haul cabin.

The A320XLR would then become the choice for militaries around the world. With 40% greater endurance than the 737. Fit systems similar to the P-8 or fit the wedgetail style radar on top to create the perfect AWAC.

Even for inflight refueling it would carry DOUBLE the fuel of the KC-390 or KC-130 tankers. It would be the perfect MRTT for Air Forces that aren't in the top 10 largest.

Another choice for military use would the the A220-100LR. It would be an easier development. Simplify the production and make it a simple shrink of the 300. With the 70t MTOW range would be well over 4000nm and it would have greater endurance than the P-8 with much lower operating costs.

Raptormodeller · Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:38 pm

I doubt we'll see a clean sheet design, but who knows. Would be nice.
As a sidenote, do we know how the late MRA4 would have fared/compared to MPA's currently in service?

keesje · Sun Aug 16, 2020 12:00 am

Slug71, RJMAZ, I think Airbus (and its political friends) have already been pushing for an A320 derivative. Interest groups, lobbyists try to influence the requirements towards their preferred solution, as we often have seen.

I think an A321XLR derivative would offer range, but like the P8, it would have a baseline design optimized for >500 kts at 40.000ft, for 25 years, 4 flights of a few hours a day. And good at that.

Cruising at 2000ft, 200kts for half a day far from home is a different mission. Like a 737MPA, an A320MPA version would have high wing loading, high operating costs, limited endurance and war load, and a half empty cabin all its operational live.

You would have to convince/ flagwave no-know decision makers into believing speed is essential for an MPA and low level endurance isn’t in todays environment. But anyone recognizing todays smugling, piracy, terrorism, boatrefugees, environmental policing, search and rescue could understand something more practical than an A320 could be required.

A twin engine configuration brings limits to payload-range. A P8 loosing an engine at V1 is different situation as a P1 or P3C loosing an engine at V1. Imagine engine trouble, 2000NM out, over a cold, dark & lonely place. Better have 2 or 3 engines left than a single one. Twin engine limits mission flexibility.

Slug71 · Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:53 pm

keesje wrote:
Slug71, RJMAZ, I think Airbus (and its political friends) have already been pushing for an A320 derivative. Interest groups, lobbyists try to influence the requirements towards their preferred solution, as we often have seen.

I think an A321XLR derivative would offer range, but like the P8, it would have a baseline design optimized for >500 kts at 40.000ft, for 25 years, 4 flights of a few hours a day. And good at that.

Cruising at 2000ft, 200kts for half a day far from home is a different mission. Like a 737MPA, an A320MPA version would have high wing loading, high operating costs, limited endurance and war load, and a half empty cabin all its operational live.

You would have to convince/ flagwave no-know decision makers into believing speed is essential for an MPA and low level endurance isn’t in todays environment. But anyone recognizing todays smugling, piracy, terrorism, boatrefugees, environmental policing, search and rescue could understand something more practical than an A320 could be required.

A twin engine configuration brings limits to payload-range. A P8 loosing an engine at V1 is different situation as a P1 or P3C loosing an engine at V1. Imagine engine trouble, 2000NM out, over a cold, dark & lonely place. Better have 2 or 3 engines left than a single one. Twin engine limits mission flexibility.

While it would be great to have another aircraft using the TP400, any such aircraft would have to also be a replacement for the C-295.
I highly doubt there will be any new development for a single purpose MPA aircraft due to financial reasons, but there is also the C-295 MPA to supplement an A320MPA for missions more suitable for it.

744SPX · Mon Aug 17, 2020 5:13 am

An A319XLR might be better suited in terms of wing loading and endurance than an A320XLR

keesje · Mon Aug 17, 2020 7:58 am

Raptormodeller wrote:
I doubt we'll see a clean sheet design, but who knows. Would be nice.
As a sidenote, do we know how the late MRA4 would have fared/compared to MPA's currently in service?

I took a quick look. The Nimrod MRA4 had an enormous wing area and 4 four engines, which works well for a MPA (14 hours endurance). It's MTOW and empty weight were huge also compared to other MPA's, and it had a very large bomb bay. So operationally, dependent on systems installed, it might have been a capable MPA, but also a kind of battleship from a different age.

https://www.flightglobal.com/in-focus-u ... 13.article

Reading a bit further ~20 Nimrod would have been modified with a new standard wing and better RR engines. Then it became clear those Nimrods were all build to different standards (not unusual in fifties / sixties). So the standard new wings didn't fit, so they reduced the program to the most standard 9 Nimrods.Then, looking at the rising investments, low quantities and expected operational costs, the government pulled the plug. Another (long) story..

It think any new MPA to be successful in the coming decades will need to be real Multi Role, more than taking photo's of fishing boats. The ASW role is there, but no longer the dominant one for future operations. Hundreds of top heavy / expensive aircraft with 11 crew members each waiting and training for the big sub war with the russians, are no longer practical and most countries don't want to pay for it.

Local crises areas, UN operations, terrorism/ piracy, environmental challenges, civil wars and huge bandwidth and powerful data sharing/ processing for everyone, vocal critical populations are new realities. Far more influential than the cold war doctrines we were raised with.

A smaller but powerful, more versatile and flexible platform could become far more useful than the ASW battle ships of the past. P1 shows a clean sheet provides superior value for money than the NB airliners our biggest suppliers love to sell for $300/400mln a ship, but still include huge compromises in terms of operation value and flexibility.

keesje

texl1649 · Mon Aug 17, 2020 5:14 pm

The nimrod was really a dinosaur by the time the MR4 was conceived. I’m amazed still they tried to offer it to the USN around 2012 too, as a new build.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-12297139

https://youtu.be/gQT2TM1vAFw

Really, I think it was a bit absurd the way they were immediately chopped up.

Keesje, you keep mentioning the benefits of 4 engines, but then you offer up a concept using two TP400’s; why? If the P-1 from Japan is an ideal scale, why go to just two huge turboprops, vs. 4 smaller ones?

texl1649 · Mon Aug 17, 2020 6:15 pm

Belgium just signed for 4 Sky Guardian MQ-9B’s. It looks to use the vehicles as well in the maritime surveillance/anti-submarine roles.

https://www.defensenews.com/native/gene ... -aircraft/

I think again that a mixed fleet of UAV’s and larger manned MPA platforms will be the normal/way forward in the future. I don’t think the BENELUX or other European countries are likely to partner/join the MAWS effort if the Germans-French did decide to actually fund it. The Italians I think have committed to the P.2HH hammerhead, which is another pretty capable alternative.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... ct-awarded

keesje · Mon Aug 17, 2020 7:42 pm

texl1649 wrote:
The nimrod was really a dinosaur by the time the MR4 was conceived. I’m amazed still they tried to offer it to the USN around 2012 too, as a new build.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-12297139

https://youtu.be/gQT2TM1vAFw

Really, I think it was a bit absurd the way they were immediately chopped up.

Keesje, you keep mentioning the benefits of 4 engines, but then you offer up a concept using two TP400’s; why? If the P-1 from Japan is an ideal scale, why go to just two huge turboprops, vs. 4 smaller ones?

texl1649, the Beagle concept is really a "trijet". In the tail it has an auxiliary power and thrust unit. (APTU).
I took the PW500 as basis for estimations. Not super efficient, it doesn't have to be. But proven and the right thrust class.

keesje

Main purposes of the APTU:

start up engines and systems

provide equivalent 4000 shp / 4.5-5 k lbs thrust during critical take off phase V1.

provide thrust during climb out at MTOW under unfavourable conditions

provide thrust if a TP400 fails during flight

provide power when TP400's are off, on the ground

provide power for DEW weapons that can replace the BK-27.

Most of the time the engine will be off & inlets closed. It will be always on during take-off (and landing), making sure runway requirements are met at 56t MTOW, 30t payload and 1 TP400 failing at V1. Without the APTU, payload (endurance..) of the Beagle would be around 40% lower. The additional weight of the APTU, surrounding structure, heavy duty IDG, inlets is about 0.5t, around double that of a conventional (non thrusting) APU.

bikerthai · Tue Aug 18, 2020 3:26 am

Keesje,

Stop with the Trumpian declaration that the P-8 airframe is 1959's tech. Sure, the basic OML is the same, but the materials from frames, to skins, to stringers have been udpated to modern materials, shapes, manufacturing advancement.

Continuing to harp on the P-3 loiter time advantage is just down playing the many times that the crew operating the P-8 have been quoting on how they can get to the search area faster thus allowing then to execute a larger search pattern than they could with a P-3. This is more true if the search area is in the middle of nowhere and less true if they search area is nearer to the coast.

True the P-8 is only for nations with deep pockets. For everyone else a smaller MPA would be more suitable.

And trying to pitch a P-1 is like trying to pitch an A400 or any other 4 engine aircrafts. We have debated enough about that trade on the Commercial side.

I can see the A320 MMA making headway, but only for Germany and France and only after the P-8 production run ends in about 5 years.

bt

bikerthai · Tue Aug 18, 2020 3:47 am

Now, you can convince me about the P-3 loiter time if you can crunch the numers in the following real world scenario.

The US have been sending P-3 and P-8 to the coast of Syria or in to the Black Sea.

If you can pull up the flight profiles of these mission and compare flight times, loiter times. You may convince me of the prowess of the P-3.

bt

keesje · Tue Aug 18, 2020 6:38 am

bikerthai wrote:
Now, you can convince me about the P-3 loiter time if you can crunch the numers in the following real world scenario.

The US have been sending P-3 and P-8 to the coast of Syria or in to the Black Sea.

If you can pull up the flight profiles of these mission and compare flight times, loiter times. You may convince me of the prowess of the P-3.

bt

It not my mission to judge the P8, I'm not attached to it. Just got the numbers of MPA including the P8. Agree, it is very fast. That where it is designed for.
On longer missions a p8 requires tankers to refill I guess. It can't hang around by itself for 10 hours, to e.g. monitor an evolving situation.

https://www.c6f.navy.mil/Press-Room/New ... refueling/
https://www.airforcemag.com/russia-usaf ... black-sea/

bikerthai · Tue Aug 18, 2020 10:56 am

keesje wrote:
It can't hang around by itself for 10 hours, to e.g. monitor an evolving situation.

Again you are thinking in past parradime.

If you want to hang around for 10 hours, send an UAV.

If you want to look at a real world scenario, look at the mission to Syria.

With a distance is about 1300 nautical miles from Italy (where they are based), it would take a P-3 three hours to get to the Syrian coast and three hours to get back. The P-8A does it in two each way. So in a 10 hours mission, the P-8A would be on station for 6 hrs while the P-3 would only be on station for 4.

And yes on occasion if they have to stay on station longer, they can do arial refueling. But if you consider human factors, you do not want to plan on having humans sitting in the plane for that long on every day missions.

And yes I have personal interest in the P-8A. But for those customers who do not need a P-8A, I would suggest they look at a two engine business jet as a platform (more comfortable) over a P-3 or even an A400. From a human factor stand point, your crew would thank you for it. And if you need something that can loiter for 10+ hours (an only a few countries need that) add an UAV. Your crew would thank you for that too.

bt

texl1649 · Tue Aug 18, 2020 3:41 pm

I agree with bikerthai 35; the answer moving forward is a P-8 (class/ability/speed) combined with (2) drones once fully integrated and also supported by appropriate (land based) tankers should provide vastly more capability, at lower costs, than what a fleet of, for instance, 4 P-3's could ever hope to achieve. The P-8/A320 can stay higher, cruise at altitude while searching, and use the low level drones more effectively than multiple manned platforms at slower speeds could.

Further, from a SAR perspective, I really think space-based imaging/data collection is also outstripping our ability to scan/process it at this point, so from a 'developing situation' angle it's not really the crux of the mission/specification. I imagine, for instance, that most boats in the future will have some sort of data-link with a service such as Starlink, which would then be able to track the last known location sent/received from. This should already be the case with aircraft MH17 aside, and I think will be within 10 years or so.

bikerthai · Tue Aug 18, 2020 9:24 pm

But that brings us to the heart of this discussion. Should they go on with the current concept of MMA aircraft or go to a less capable aircraft and put more money into UAV?

It does make keesje evaluation more complicated.

From a logistics stand point, it is much easier to stand up a drone augmented squadron, fewer "pilots" to train and maintain.

bt

keesje · Thu Aug 20, 2020 10:38 am

bikerthai wrote:
But that brings us to the heart of this discussion. Should they go on with the current concept of MMA aircraft or go to a less capable aircraft and put more money into UAV?

It does make keesje evaluation more complicated.

From a logistics stand point, it is much easier to stand up a drone augmented squadron, fewer "pilots" to train and maintain.

bt

We have seen increasing numbers of UAV's for decades and they seems most successful as flying sensors. There will be more and better ones, adding new roles. Replacing all MPA's seems far out. UAV's tend to be single role rather than multi role. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_u ... l_vehicles

An MPA like the Beagle also has terrain mapping, target acquisition and surveillance roles. But there is so much more:

ASW: dropping patterns of sonobuoys, in harms way: launch dept charges, torpedo's

Air to Surface missions, target acquisition, launch TAURUS, Exocet like weapons, air launched drones.

Medevac, via the aft cargo door, 4 brancars and medical personnel can be taken onboard.

Passenger transport, up to 20 people can be seated, troops, maintenance crew, evacuees, exchange crews

Search & Rescue, 4 observers can be facilitated, the wide aft door enables life rafts to be air dropped. https://youtu.be/T1AqFUrmrlE

A Beagle like multi role MPA will be able to refuel thirsty (SAR) helicopters and other aircraft. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN1bAJnMTx0

High value /urgent cargo. Via the aft door door 4 pallets, ~4t can be loaded, locked. (maintenance equipment, medicines, weapons, etc.)

Forward deployments, UN mission , policing missions, unscheduled crisis area interventions

Special operations. This type of MPA would be an agile, FBW, high powered aircraft, giving support with BK-27, TRIGAT-LR, ect

Preventing piracy, robbery in international waters, for hours. Until ships clear the area or help arrives. https://www.marineinsight.com/marine-pi ... the-world/

While UAV's provide great value and have unique capabilities, they lack the capabilities and flexibility to take over many, most multirole MPA missions.
Creating a fleet of tankers, cargo, passenger aircraft, gunships, patrol, SAR and ASW aircraft to do the same tasks seems a past paradigm.

keesje

bikerthai · Thu Aug 20, 2020 3:31 pm

Of the jobs listed only a few are pertenant to the MMA role.

You have the ASW, surveillances, and search and rescue. You can also add C3. The rest of the missions can be better suited using another platform.

Trying to fit too many functionality into one air frame just make for a more complicated and expensive platform.

Once you to do that, you are pigeonholed into something like a P-8A or A320 MMA. If you are trying to reduce cost, you'll try to minimize to the most essential function, and let some other less expensive platform do the other work.

Example. A armed Predator would would be an excellent anti-piracy platform. It has extended persistence capability, the curernt weapon suite may be a little of an overkill but a sight of one of those drone would discourage a pirates as much as a maned aircraft.

bt

keesje · Thu Aug 20, 2020 6:31 pm

Currently big ASW MPA's warn, coordinate the hell out of suspect piracy ships in international waters. While ships in the area rush in, launch helicopters. An UAV mainly warns pirats they have to hurry.

An alarmed Beagle like aircraft would dash into the area at high speed, do a low pass to take a close look / HD pictures of the situation, send them to ships in the area for assesment, while it climbs out to 5000ft, circling the area, trying to establish contact with the suspect ship. If it doesn't responds to warnings, and move aggresively, a line can be drawn in the water with the Mauser in front of the suspect ship. Or a few rounds can be send into the deck, machine room, if no other option remains open. Life rafts can be dropped if the ship sinks. Hostages might be on board..

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/somali-pir ... l/45981052

keesje · Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:30 am

Rheinland Air Service is pushing with it's own ATR-72 variant as interim solution.

No doubt ATR supports this, no doubt it doesn't meet French Specs & Airbus likes the CN295 MPA better.,

https://specialmission.ras.de/the-ras72/

This could take some time :eyebrow:

smithbs · Mon Sep 28, 2020 2:39 pm

The ATR-72 fuselage would be tempting, but it would need a new wing to do this job. That would mean higher weights, so new landing gear, and some fuselage mods, slightly bigger engines, and so on. But since every option besides P-1 and P-8 requires R&D money, it could be a contender. Airbus could be satisfied by being the prime contractor: they could buy the fuselage from ATR and modify/deliver it from there.

Also don't forget the Swordfish - the Global 6000 being modified by Sweden. That could be a nice option.

keesje · Mon Sep 28, 2020 8:10 pm

smithbs wrote:
The ATR-72 fuselage would be tempting, but it would need a new wing to do this job. That would mean higher weights, so new landing gear, and some fuselage mods, slightly bigger engines, and so on. But since every option besides P-1 and P-8 requires R&D money, it could be a contender. Airbus could be satisfied by being the prime contractor: they could buy the fuselage from ATR and modify/deliver it from there.

Also don't forget the Swordfish - the Global 6000 being modified by Sweden. That could be a nice option.

ATR72 MPA’s have re entry been delivered recently to Italian, Pakistani and Turkish airforces, so the base -600 militarized platform is available. Probably an affordable, but seriously compromised platform compared to Atlantiques and Orion’s.

In OP you can see C-295 and ATR-72 are very close and Airbus is deeply involved in both..

smithbs · Mon Sep 28, 2020 8:29 pm

keesje wrote:
smithbs wrote:
The ATR-72 fuselage would be tempting, but it would need a new wing to do this job. That would mean higher weights, so new landing gear, and some fuselage mods, slightly bigger engines, and so on. But since every option besides P-1 and P-8 requires R&D money, it could be a contender. Airbus could be satisfied by being the prime contractor: they could buy the fuselage from ATR and modify/deliver it from there.

Also don't forget the Swordfish - the Global 6000 being modified by Sweden. That could be a nice option.

ATR72 MPA’s have re entry been delivered recently to Italian, Pakistani and Turkish airforces, so the base -600 militarized platform is available. Probably an affordable, but seriously compromised platform compared to Atlantiques and Orion’s.

In OP you can see C-295 and ATR-72 are very close and Airbus is deeply involved in both..

ATR and C-295 both suffer from the same problems in this role. But it will get you by, if that's all you can afford. My point was that if you could take the ATR-72 fuselage as a base and put a new wing on it, with everything that entails, you might actually hit upon something decent.

keesje · Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:44 am

smithbs wrote:
keesje wrote:
smithbs wrote:
The ATR-72 fuselage would be tempting, but it would need a new wing to do this job. That would mean higher weights, so new landing gear, and some fuselage mods, slightly bigger engines, and so on. But since every option besides P-1 and P-8 requires R&D money, it could be a contender. Airbus could be satisfied by being the prime contractor: they could buy the fuselage from ATR and modify/deliver it from there.

Also don't forget the Swordfish - the Global 6000 being modified by Sweden. That could be a nice option.

ATR72 MPA’s have re entry been delivered recently to Italian, Pakistani and Turkish airforces, so the base -600 militarized platform is available. Probably an affordable, but seriously compromised platform compared to Atlantiques and Orion’s.

In OP you can see C-295 and ATR-72 are very close and Airbus is deeply involved in both..

ATR and C-295 both suffer from the same problems in this role. But it will get you by, if that's all you can afford. My point was that if you could take the ATR-72 fuselage as a base and put a new wing on it, with everything that entails, you might actually hit upon something decent.

Indeed using an existing fuselage and create a wing/engine design for long endurance could save a lot of investment and time. Specifically the ATR fuselage however seems very compromised for an multirole MPA useage. There is no space for any belly loads , same as Q400. So all loads (torpedo's, UAV's, rafts, other weapons) must be carried outside on the fuselage and wings, limiting speed, range, capacity and flexibility.

https://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Sch ... _ATR72.pdf

The C-500 concept has a fuselage cross section close to that of the A220, BAE 146. But still it would need to be reengineered and modified, strengthened for specific doors, openings and loads.

keesje

Flying-Tiger · Tue Sep 29, 2020 8:02 am

If one takes a look on a map of Europe it becomes clear that there is a large littoral area to be coveres (North Sea, Baltic Sea, Irish Sea, Med, Norwegian Coast, Biskay) and large streches of open water (GUIK gap etc). One size fits it all may be tempting, but in reality the area is large enough to allow for a long-range solution (which the Poseidon or a hypotetical A320MPA are), and a short-range option. For the limited market potential available I find it unreasonable to invest vast amounts of money into a platform which might fit the bill 100% (but will be highly expensive) opposed to taking a somewhat compromised solution off-the-shelf (read: ATR 72, Casa 295), which might be able to cover 80% of the requirement but costs only 50% or less. Might be that you need one or two platforms more to have the same capability available, but at that price...

keesje · Tue Sep 29, 2020 3:45 pm

Flying-Tiger wrote:
If one takes a look on a map of Europe it becomes clear that there is a large littoral area to be coveres (North Sea, Baltic Sea, Irish Sea, Med, Norwegian Coast, Biskay) and large streches of open water (GUIK gap etc). One size fits it all may be tempting, but in reality the area is large enough to allow for a long-range solution (which the Poseidon or a hypotetical A320MPA are), and a short-range option. For the limited market potential available I find it unreasonable to invest vast amounts of money into a platform which might fit the bill 100% (but will be highly expensive) opposed to taking a somewhat compromised solution off-the-shelf (read: ATR 72, Casa 295), which might be able to cover 80% of the requirement but costs only 50% or less. Might be that you need one or two platforms more to have the same capability available, but at that price...

I think the A320, 737 MPA versions are in reality highly compromised compared to more dedicated aircraft, see OP. Compromised in being basically unsuitable for low & slow, having limited endurance / airtime, war loads, field performance and being inflexiible (air fields, multi role). We see local industry lobbies going full force for those though. Of the line, low risk, high margin.

Industries can be seen trying to bend the requirements and specifications into flying higher, faster, needing tankers, half empty fuselages. Their priority is just selling, building as many airframes (MPA's transports, tanker, SAR, passenger) as possible. They must hate the concept of multirole.

Agree though on the smaller / larger MPA concept, Northsea, Baltic Sea, Mediterranean can do with a smaller, less capable airframe most of the missions. And I think the market will be significantly larger than just Europe.

bikerthai · Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:31 pm

keesje wrote:
being basically unsuitable for low & slow, having limited endurance / airtime, war loads, field performance and being inflexiible (air fields, multi role).

All of the above have been disproved by the P-8A.

Why the hard-on for low and slow? If the same mission can be accomplished high and fast (extend the horizon enevelope) then isn't it a better paradigm? Low and slow can now be delegated to drones which will become the go to platform for single mission concepts.

As for air field, I'm sure there's enough airfield around the world that can easily accept a 737 or A320.

keesje wrote:
half empty fuselages.

It's called growth capability. And with the advent of AAS, the P-8A growth is approaching the the limit. Half empty it is not.

bt

keesje · Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:40 pm

bikerthai wrote:
keesje wrote:
being basically unsuitable for low & slow, having limited endurance / airtime, war loads, field performance and being inflexiible (air fields, multi role).

All of the above have been disproved by the P-8A.

Why the hard-on for low and slow? If the same mission can be accomplished high and fast (extend the horizon enevelope) then isn't it a better paradigm? Low and slow can now be delegated to drones which will become the go to platform for single mission concepts.

As for air field, I'm sure there's enough airfield around the world that can easily accept a 737 or A320.

keesje wrote:
half empty fuselages.

It's called growth capability. And with the advent of AAS, the P-8A growth is approaching the the limit. Half empty it is not.

bt

It seems the Japanese, optimizing their MPA from a blank sheet of paper, fully disagree with you. They specified the P1 with low wingloading, real long range and oversized cockpit windows to facilitate two pair of the most advanced, intelligent sensors available for low level flight.

They don't have to reinvent torpedo's, sonobuoys, rafts etc to be dropped from great height and are perfectly fine cruising 200kts at a few thousand feet, or lower for search and rescue, environmental policing, visual identifications etc.

But had the choice to go tailored blank sheet, instead of being pressured into either a reworked passenger 737 or making the Electra a centennial aircraft.

https://battle-machines.org/2015/12/06/ ... dern-mpas/

texl1649 · Thu Oct 08, 2020 4:55 pm

There’s nothing at all wrong with the P-1 but that was a fairly even analysis. I’m not sure the trailing edge wing sweep difference really means all that much.

“ Operating at higher altitudes has its advantages as well. The horizon for sensors is much larger, fuel efficiency is higher while much larger area can be covered in the same amount of time. The P-8A will be working alongside drones which include the massive MQ-4C Triton currently under testing. The absence of MAD (Magnetic Anomaly Detector) is also justified as it doesn’t work as well from higher altitudes. BAE is currently developing MAD equipped drones to make sure that the lack of MAD on the P-8A is taken care of. Thus the P-8A can comfortably operate at high altitudes while marshaling its drones for detecting targets and destroying them as and when needed using onboard weapons.”

Overall I’m convinced the P-1 is a great plane, but will have limited export success a la A400M. It’s just very costly, net, for a niche capability delta (flying lower/having 4 engines, able to shut down 2, while also lacking some of the long term support and abilities of the P-8).

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net