Airbus A320 family ASW / MRA / MPA versions

CJGibson said:
I can't see any detail of a weapons bay/doors under rear fuselage so left that blank. Also not sure if that ASM is on the model or behind it.

Also surprised that it doesn’t have the A321Neo cockpit glazing.

Chris
Click to expand...

The NEO has the same glazing as the CEO, it just adds a painted 'Racoon mask' as standard.

timmymagic said:
Whats the potential market for this now though? I'm struggling to see beyond a small French buy....
Click to expand...

Yup, too late. Yet another of those frustrating cases where there was a real market of appreciable size in Europe, potentially providing an opportunity to launch an economically viable joint programme, but where political indecision led to the acquisitions going out of sync. The countries in question then all proceed to individually buy the US solution off the shelf, leading to the situation where Western Europe now has the largest P-8 fleet outside the US at 22 :( Bigger than Asia (16), bigger than Oceania (18) and bigger then North America excluding the US (14), and if it had been available in a timely fashion a European alternative might have won a couple of those export contracts, too.
 
timmymagic said:
But who are they though? Most of the countries that have a need for a large ASW platform have already purchased P-8 (or P-1). Of the remainder you've got the Netherlands, Portugal, Greece, Chile and Brazil (I'm excluding Pakistan as they've got ATR and France won't risk Indian defence sales...). Brazil is as likely to develop their own based on the C-390 or other Brazilian plane (and ASW isn't really top of their priorities compared to basic MP duties and SAR). Netherlands might want a few...but are more likely to go with P-8 for commonality with Germany and UK. Portugal and Chile are both planning to service life extend their P-3 significantly. Basically outside of Greece I can't see any other potential candidates...and they're surely not going to develop it based on a total buy of 30 aircraft...unless they think there is mileage in a potential Argentinian order....
Click to expand...
Turkish Navy has been eyeing the P-8 for over a decade with great interest but they haven't made a move thinking they won't be able get the FMS approval or pass it through the Congress. A purchase of the A320MPA by the Turkish Navy would be nigh impossible considering EU-Turkish relations but it seems like If France & Germany were to keep it cool, this could be the only long ranged MPA option the Navy could demand and the local industry is too busy with current projects at hand to develop an equivalent anyway (and if they were to develop one, it would highly likely be based on the Global 6000 - meaning it doesn't cover the same mission role as the P-8 or A320MPA).

1000005371.png 1000005368.jpg 1000005366.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 1000005364.jpg
    1000005364.jpg
    21.3 KB · Views: 64
  • 1000005366.jpg
    1000005366.jpg
    132.6 KB · Views: 75
MrTopaz said:
I thought I read in one of these threads that Boeing was letting it be known to potential buyers that they were coming up on last call for production of the P-8? I suppose they could have changed their mind, given Boeing’s recent corporate strategy of face-planting into piles of dog crap, but still. Maybe Boeing’s troubles plus a production line on the verge of slowing down are giving airbus ideas. Assuming I’m remembering correctly and the comment I saw was correct to begin with, and Boeing is looking to move on from P-8.
Click to expand...
And thats the thing....the market for high end ASW aircraft has essentially been had by the P-8....the only reason for Boeing to cease production would be because there are no further countries out there with the requirement and funds to buy one....and when you look at the remaining countries left with a requirement and funds they're not far wrong....
 
Could be related to their legacy 737 production line, as the mil-spec 737s are the only customers and the sales isn't strong either
 
TomS said:
What looks like an ASM under the forward fuselage is actually just a flat section with several blade aerials. Presumably an ELINT pod, or configurable sensor hard point.

Image is a still from the Naval News video.
Click to expand...
Fixed.

Thanks

Chris
 
The Airbus A-321 MPA would have won the replacement market for 18 French Atlantic 2s.
www.latribune.fr

Avions de patrouille maritime : le ministère choisit Airbus

Le ministère des Armées a sélectionné la proposition d'Airbus Defence & Space au détriment de celle de Dassault Aviation pour le programme d'avions de patrouille maritime (Patmar). Ce programme vise à renouveler après 2030 la flotte constituée par 18 Atlantique 2.
www.latribune.fr www.latribune.fr

To be confirmed
 
Here some pictures of the A320MPA and A321MPA.
Airbus Defence switched from the basic model A320neo to the A320XLR, because the latter one can carry more payload and has a longer range.
Still, neither all requirements nor an official decision have been made public so far.
Source (German):
www.flugrevue.de

Frankreich will A321XLR als U-Boot-Jäger - ohne Deutschland

Eigentlich wollten Deutschland und Frankreich die nächste Flugzeuggeneration für U-Boot-Jagd und Seefernaufklärung zusammen beauftragen. Doch dann kaufte Deutschland die P-8A Poseidon. Und Frankreich? Zieht es jetzt wohl alleine durch. Mit Airbus.
www.flugrevue.de www.flugrevue.de
 

Attachments

  • 20241112_Airbus_A321_MPA_001.jpg
    20241112_Airbus_A321_MPA_001.jpg
    116.9 KB · Views: 53
  • 20241112_Airbus_A320_MPA_002.jpg
    20241112_Airbus_A320_MPA_002.jpg
    190.7 KB · Views: 47
  • 20241112_Airbus_A320_MPA_003.jpg
    20241112_Airbus_A320_MPA_003.jpg
    151.1 KB · Views: 47
  • A320-NEO-MPA-maws-e1585745638542.jpg
    A320-NEO-MPA-maws-e1585745638542.jpg
    31.3 KB · Views: 48
  • a320-airbus-patmar-airbus-defence.jpg
    a320-airbus-patmar-airbus-defence.jpg
    14.2 KB · Views: 51
Deltafan said:
The Airbus A-321 MPA would have won the replacement market for 18 French Atlantic 2s.
www.latribune.fr

Avions de patrouille maritime : le ministère choisit Airbus

Le ministère des Armées a sélectionné la proposition d'Airbus Defence & Space au détriment de celle de Dassault Aviation pour le programme d'avions de patrouille maritime (Patmar). Ce programme vise à renouveler après 2030 la flotte constituée par 18 Atlantique 2.
www.latribune.fr www.latribune.fr

To be confirmed
Click to expand...

Makes some sense. Falcons have long been used for "light" PATMAR, since the Falcon 10 days. But "heavy" PATMAR needs something bigger than a bizjet (even a large one) and closer in size from an Atlantic 2.
 
24 month detailed risk assessment study after the previous outline architecture feasibility study before they commence detailed design work in 2026 of the A321XLR MRA.
 
With Germany and Canada fully committed to the P-8, is there any other potential customer for this aircraft besides France ? It's tantalizing to think what could have happened had this project materialized some 10-15 years ago.
 
10 to 15 years ago Airbus was only looking for a minimal transformation of the source airframe. Now, the promise to do some radical modifications could make it a viable alternative on the market.
So, in essence, 10 to 15 years ago, this could not have happened.
 
alberchico said:
With Germany and Canada fully committed to the P-8, is there any other potential customer for this aircraft besides France ? It's tantalizing to think what could have happened had this project materialized some 10-15 years ago.
Click to expand...

This is the bit that I just can't figure out....when you look at the list of countries who have a need and budget for a high end MPA, and are friendly...there is practically no-one left who isn't already committed to P-8 (or P-1) for the next 40 years...
 
Well we paid for Atlantique 2 alone, 45 years ago : noone else bought it, despite Atlantique 1 before it. So A320 MPA can be similar, it doesn't really matters. Atlantic airframe was paid by NATO, A320 airframe don't cost much considering the 10, 000 something already built plus all the others in the future.
 
It won't come for cheap if they do really implement all their allegations (see for example maniability at low alt that would induce significant structural work and flight time in airframe qualifications).
 
TomcatViP said:
It won't come for cheap if they do really implement all their allegations (see for example maniability at low alt that would induce significant structural work and flight time in airframe qualifications).
Click to expand...

Maniability?

The quality of being able to acquire a mental disorder?


And allegations?
 
My mobile corrector is a mess to work through. So many languages that I can't put a word straight. That's what AI (pattern learning) do.

My bad, maneuvrability and Claims.
 
TomcatViP said:
My mobile corrector is a mess to work through. So many languages that I can't put a word straight. That's what AI (pattern learning) do.

My bad, maneuvrability and Claims.
Click to expand...
"Alterations" works better for meaning than does "claims".
 
timmymagic said:
This is the bit that I just can't figure out....when you look at the list of countries who have a need and budget for a high end MPA, and are friendly...there is practically no-one left who isn't already committed to P-8 (or P-1) for the next 40 years...
Click to expand...

Greece? Italy? Maybe Spain if they want to upgrade from the C295s, though that is a very recent order.
 
TomS said:
Greece? Italy? Maybe Spain if they want to upgrade from the C295s, though that is a very recent order.
Click to expand...

Spain or Portugal 'should' make sense for P-8 or A321 MPA but seem happy with their C-212/C-295 and C-295/P-3C CUP fleets....

As should Greece with Turkeys growing Sub fleet....but they've not placed a high priority on it for a long time and would be arguably better suited to a C-295 fleet operationally and financially. They're planning on running P-3B for some time to come...

There are a few ex-P-3 operators who 'should' be looking for large ASW aircraft in the future, but a lot of that assumption is that because they operated P-3 they will want an equivalent high end capability again....I suspect for many a cheaper option like C-295 would make sense.
 
Last edited:
timmymagic said:
but seem happy with their C-212/C-295
Click to expand...
The current government is not acting responsibly in accordance with strategic needs. It is inconceivable not to plan the acquisition of maritime patrol aircraft in the class of the Boeing P-8 or a future A321MPA. I do not believe that the Armed Forces are completely "happy" with the C-212/C-295.
 
How many decades has this MPA 320 project lasted yet? Nobody at Airbus get the word?
Let´s be serious a second, does Airbus really think that 3g (with even stricter limitations due to the expected increase in EW & GW) would fit a military airplane?
 
Oh, twenty-plus years, at least. A bit less than Lockheed pitched their Orion for the role until the Poseidon appeared.

I can't recall offhand how much the 737 airframe needed modded for the ASW role, probably as much as the A320 will need, so why worry?

Chris
 
That such a fundamental variable for the design of an airframe hasn't been taken into consideration while a model is shared with the press, presented at a trade fair and vehemently presented as a better alternative to the Falcon derivative is a sign of border line incompetence.

I am pretty sure that you could go to Dassault and ask the pizza guy how many Gee their Falcon is designed around... And he will get you the answer.
 
That's an airshow press release I posted, not a tech spec, so why worry about it? If you are, ask Airbus.
Somehow I doubt that Dassault/EADS/Airbus, despite the former's penchant for what have been described as 'knife and fork' prototypes, will have omitted consideration of g when they proposed this.

Chris
 
CJGibson said:
Somehow I doubt that Dassault/EADS/Airbus, despite the former's penchant for what have been described as 'knife and fork' prototypes, will have omitted consideration of g when they proposed this.
Click to expand...
Crazier things have happened though.
 
G consideration is just an example. A low flying a/c needs also some gust alleviation criteria to be met. integrated in the design, the flight ctrl, structure, avionics, weapons release mechanisms etc...
It's often a different airplane than its high flying counterpart. That's why the recent declaration that they don't yet know their flight profile is alarming.

Identically, if most of the work can be done, with the proper systems, not something straightforward, from a high altitude, you still have to get low during a mission to show yourself in Maritime protection (unless you plan to free lend an air radar set to all trawlers from Spain to China) or for special weapon delivery, under radar cover penetration...

An aircraft operating that far at sea needs all the tricks it can get to survive the fight out there. That's a minimum a crew should be able to rely on.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom