The path not taken.
- Oct 9, 2009
- Reaction score
More than likely a cover for the fact that the German MOD is highly unlikely to receive the funding to buy them any time soon.
What "type certification" are they talking about? It's been operational in Japan for 7 years. Why would it take 5 years to get certified?
indeed what could have beenYou know, I really, really, really, like these aircraft, I'd rate both as first in their class, but I get the feeling that in 20 years people on this site will be talking about "what might have been" where they are concerned. Same goes for the Shinmeywa US-2.
I wish that the U.K. Government could have bought some P-1s to compliment the P-8 force, as the P-1 features technology that the P-8 does not have.indeed what could have beenYou know, I really, really, really, like these aircraft, I'd rate both as first in their class, but I get the feeling that in 20 years people on this site will be talking about "what might have been" where they are concerned. Same goes for the Shinmeywa US-2.
and since we're at it, in UK colors
Probably EASA/ICAO military certification.What "type certification" are they talking about? It's been operational in Japan for 7 years. Why would it take 5 years to get certified?
The Naval Technology Kawasaki P-1 page does a better job at explaining the technology than I ever could.
Still not getting any indication of why a P-1 is any better than a P-8...The Naval Technology Kawasaki P-1 page does a better job at explaining the technology than I ever could.
Kawasaki XP-1 (previously known as P-X) is a maritime patrol aircraft being developed by Kawasaki Heavy Industries for the Japan...Read More...www.naval-technology.com
P-1 is a clean sheet ASW design, P-8 is an airliner.
P-1 is a clean sheet ASW design, P-8 is an airliner. So what. The P-3 was based on the Electra and has done sterling service for decades. I challenge anyone to point out any real compromises created by taking the 737 derivative route.
P-8 has to operate at altitude since it is an airliner. Rubbish! The change was driven just as much by changed concepts of operation - do you really think Boeing just designed a platform without input from potential end users? It required the development of entirely new ASW tactics since it can't do low and slow search unassisted by drones, and new torpedoes and sonobuoys for high altitude drop. P-1 can do low and slow, but it can also operate at altitude. You can choose tactics to fit the situation.
P-1 has an AESA that can do both surface and air search. P-8 doesn't have a built in AESA, but it has surface search AESA pod that can also be over both land and sea. It doesn't have the air search capability the P-1 has And is Air Search really a requirement for a MPA?; as far as I know the P-1 doesn't have the land search capability the P-8 has with the pod.
P-1 has a MAD boom. P-8 needs a drone to do a MAD search. The P-8 can be fitted with a MAD though interestingly, only the Indians seem to want it. Why is that I wonder...coming back to the Operators driving the CONOPS...
P-1 has 4 engines. It can continue the mission with 3, it can shut two down and cruise on two to increase range. P-8 has two, loss of one is a mission kill. And the reliability of CFM56s is...? Based upon how many decades of operations...?
P-1 has longer range. Really? Based on what? The _8 can do aerial refuelling if need be - can the P-1? And anyway, crew endurance really becomes the more pertinent measure here...
P-1 has a bigger bomb bay (8 vs. 5 stations), and more pylons (16 vs. 11). The total payload is similar. And how often do you think MPAs are really loaded for bear?
P-1 is more maneuverable, and from what I've seen of their demos it appears to need less runway for takeoff and landing. Subjective and not necessarily accurate nor necessarily even a meaningful need - nobody is going to be loping MPAs or dogfighting or otherwise...
P-1 is the first fly by light production aircraft. So what. Which may reduce interference with the sensors. May. And yet, I don't see this being a major consideration anywhere else with combat aircraft - why is that I wonder...?
P-1 is prettier. It looks more like a military aircraft. P-8 is just another boring 737. Purely subjective (I actually find the P-1 uglier). That said, if this is your driving consideration than go for it.
Clean sheet is the main thing, since it means the airframe and systems are optimized for the mission. Even things like the fact it has massive cockpit windows to facilitate visual search (which also improves visibility around the airfield) are because of the optimized design. For me personally, it's the ability to do low and slow as well as high altitude that carries the most weight. The P-8's compromised airframe closes off access to decades of tactical ASW practice and experience because it can't do low and slow. I think that's a deal-breaker. Sounds like someone trying to justify a position based on a lot of subjective points and trying to think that the solution of the past (e.g. P-3s and its ilk) is the only solution for the future. a bit like those who argue CAS can only be done by an A-10 with a gun. It also seems to think that real world operators had nothing to do with the development of the CONOPS or the solution inherent in the P-8. At the end of the day, I wonder who got it right in the eyes of operators: P-8 (176 either delivered or on order with 7 air forces) or P-1 (60 produced and only in service with 1 air force)...hmmm
Funny how the operators of the P-8, other than India all seem to not care...I wonder why? Probably because they know more...
the hard part is in detecting a weak signal in a very short period of time (time of overflight). Imagine then that this weak signal dissipate with altitude. The higher you get the more spread it is. You then have traded a problem of short intensity burst detection with that of detecting that signal over a large area. Obviously, you are not going to use that information for direct targeting but to track the general pattern and know accurately where to drop your sensor to close-in.
The original plan for the USN P-8 fleet was to have them equipped with expendable MAD sensor drones among other things, but that has long since become vapourware. The RAF was interested in an integral MAD capability for their P-8s, but they were ignored in order to save a few pennies (there was some talk of supplementing the RAF's P-8s with 'low cost' land based drones with MAD capability, but that is all that it seems to have been, talk). With regards as to the P-8I's MAD system, that was supposed to remain in testing until around November of this year AFAIK, though it is quite possible they moved up that because of ongoing tensions with the PRC.Funny how the operators of the P-8, other than India all seem to not care...I wonder why? Probably because they know more...
AFAIK, the HAASW UTAS effort is still, like HAAWC, ongoing for the P-8.The original plan for the USN P-8 fleet was to have them equipped with expendable MAD sensor drones among other things, but that has long since become vapourware.Funny how the operators of the P-8, other than India all seem to not care...I wonder why? Probably because they know more...
That's a bit too nested, I'll reply this way.Comments in response in green bold