• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Kawasaki P-X and C-X

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,717
Reaction score
1,841
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.
 

apparition13

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 27, 2017
Messages
165
Reaction score
204
You 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.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,717
Reaction score
1,841
Hopefully that won't end up being the case.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,830
Reaction score
298
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.
I mean this is the same MOD that thinks they can get the non nuclear-capable Super Hornet to nuclear certified status in 5 years.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,717
Reaction score
1,841
True. I rather suspect that Germany has just about run out of time, not to mention the rest of the western powers.
 

helmutkohl

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
206
Reaction score
200
You 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.
indeed what could have been



and since we're at it, in UK colors

 

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,467
Reaction score
283
You 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.
indeed what could have been



and since we're at it, in UK colors

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.
 

helmutkohl

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
206
Reaction score
200
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.
interesting. could you explain a bit more on those features?
 

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,467
Reaction score
283
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.
interesting. could you explain a bit more on those features?
The Naval Technology Kawasaki P-1 page does a better job at explaining the technology than I ever could.

 

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,790
Reaction score
1,073
From what I understood export P-1s would have quite different non-Japanese avionics and equipment (90% of the components are indigenous), so presumably they would essentially be re-certificating all the non-structural elements all over again. Not cheap and not easy or quick to do.
Japan just isn't geared up for easy military exports. It faces the problem of bespoke Japanese kit no-one else wants (limited spares and technical support) and bits of US-kit it can't re-export without approval from Washington. Until it can overcome these, talk of Japanese military aircraft exports is highly optimistic and premature. Even Japanese civilian export sales are weak.

No doubt the P-1 is a fine MPA, but unless you can build a product nations can buy easily and affordably, its always going to be niche. Presumably Berlin doesn't want to be left holding the bag and trying to amortise the cost of changing up to 90% of the systems on the aircraft. Given the UK, France, New Zealand and Norway already walked away, the omens for a sale are not good.
 

apparition13

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 27, 2017
Messages
165
Reaction score
204
That makes no sense to me. If I'm buying a P-1 (and I absolutely would over the P-8), all I want changed is the displays, from Japanese to English (or German, or whatever). I presume P-8s aren't being re-avioniced, why do it with P-1s? You lose the advantage of not having to do the R&D and development by buying an off the shelf product. If that's the case, why are you buying from someone else in the first place? Especially if it's meant to be an interim aircraft to cover for aircraft that are ageing out while you develop something new. Getting it in service quickly seems to be a priority at that point, so just take what's there. Otherwise it's just B-57* for the umpteenth time. If you need something quickly then take whatever is out there that comes closest to what you want and make do.

*It's 1950 and the Korean war just started, and we need a night interdictor. Canberra looks good, but rather than just buy them we will have a competition, and then do a whole lot of modifications and oops, the war is over before they get into service. So all those troops that needed the support of a night interdictor didnt' get it. See also a new CAS aircraft for Vietnam.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,935
Reaction score
398
Website
beyondthesprues.com
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.
interesting. could you explain a bit more on those features?
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...
 

apparition13

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 27, 2017
Messages
165
Reaction score
204
Still not getting any indication of why a P-1 is any better than a P-8...
P-1 is a clean sheet ASW design, P-8 is an airliner.

P-8 has to operate at altitude since it is an airliner. 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; 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.

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.

P-1 has longer range.

P-1 has a bigger bomb bay (8 vs. 5 stations), and more pylons (16 vs. 11). The total payload is similar.

P-1 is more maneuverable, and from what I've seen of their demos it appears to need less runway for takeoff and landing.

P-1 is the first fly by light production aircraft. Which may reduce interference with the sensors.

P-1 is prettier. :) It looks more like a military aircraft. P-8 is just another boring 737.

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.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,011
Reaction score
705
Just a minor correction, already added some pages before, the 737 airframe has been completly re-designed for the P-8 with a stronger structure, added wing spars and thicker skin (wing & fuselage). It can manoeuvre harder and better than the classic 737 thanks to new FBW.
Also, India does use their P-8 "low and slow" with a new generation MAD sensor.

Edit:
@marauder2048 beat me on the line. Great pic b/w.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,717
Reaction score
1,841
That MAD system is only fitted on the P-8I, and is not yet operational.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,252
Reaction score
237
That MAD system is only fitted on the P-8I, and is not yet operational.
Do you have a source for the claim that AN/ASQ-508A is not operational? Because CAE and Naval Air Arm are saying it is.
 

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,467
Reaction score
283
One thing I find puzzling about the RAF acquiring the P-8 is that why didn’t the RAF follow India and get the MAD tail boom fitted as well? Was it operational requirements?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,064
Reaction score
1,053
I'd argue it wasn't the change of aircraft that forced the emphasis on high-level tactics, but rather the desire to adopt new tactics that let to the change in aircraft. This wasn't a case where they had no other option. LM had Orion 21 on offer, and the USN could have written requirements to favor wavetop sub hunting but opted not to. Too much time doing overland ISR in GWOT? Or a realization that there are new ways to do the MARPAT mission?

When you look at how the P-8 actually gets used, they are doing the low-level when needed ("rigging" ships, for example) and doing it effectively. The fact that the customers aren't demanding MAD suggests they don't think it's terribly important for their use cases. As the Indian P-8I shows, the US and British aircraft could easily have MAD if the capability was considered mission-essential. Keep in mind that the US usage of MPA these days it at least as much for wide-area surveillance as for pinpoint sub hunting. Which is why things like the LSRS/AAS radars are especially useful but maybe MAD is not. (BTW, AAS offers a mast and periscope detection mode, so it has some pretty obvious ASW application.)
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,935
Reaction score
398
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Comments in response in green bold

Still not getting any indication of why a P-1 is any better than a P-8...
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
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,935
Reaction score
398
Website
beyondthesprues.com
One thing I find puzzling about the RAF acquiring the P-8 is that why didn’t the RAF follow India and get the MAD tail boom fitted as well? Was it operational requirements?
Probably because they decided it wasn't needed anymore.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,935
Reaction score
398
Website
beyondthesprues.com

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,830
Reaction score
298
Atomic vapor magnetometers, which are on par with SQUIDs, are $10k each. Cheap enough to be expendable.

And probably better to have your drone down and dirty especially if submariners start getting cute with SAMs.

Wacking your MPA and its highly trained, hard to replace human crew seems like a good ROI
especially if the acoustic cacophony of a narrowbody hitting the sea surface is good cover for
the submarine egressing at speed.

1592331008_naval-group_com.jpg
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,011
Reaction score
705
Moreover, I would not be surprised to hear that MAD sensors have migrated to space.
I would. It's hard enough to do effective MAD localization at hundreds of feet, much less hundreds of miles.
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.
 
Last edited:

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,717
Reaction score
1,841
Still not getting any indication of why a P-1 is any better than a P-8...
P-1 has a MAD boom. P-8 needs a drone to do a MAD search.
View attachment 640844
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 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.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,830
Reaction score
298
Still not getting any indication of why a P-1 is any better than a P-8...
P-1 has a MAD boom. P-8 needs a drone to do a MAD search.
View attachment 640844
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 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.
AFAIK, the HAASW UTAS effort is still, like HAAWC, ongoing for the P-8.
Is the vaporwave remark tongue-in-cheek because they intended to use atomic vapor magnetometers?
 

apparition13

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 27, 2017
Messages
165
Reaction score
204
Comments in response in green bold
*snip*
That's a bit too nested, I'll reply this way.

You said you wanted reasons, no one replied. You asked again, no one replied again, so since I get frustrated when my questions get ignored I thought I'd give some reasons I prefer the P-1.

I'll respond to a couple of specific points.

Four engines vs. two: high altitude, who cares. Flying at 3000 feet in bird-air, might become relevant. Which would you rather be in when you lose an engine to a bird-strike: the aircraft designed to fly and fight with three engines or the the one with the interesting handling and power issues now that it's down to one? Which is more likely to recover when an engine barbeques a pelican at 3000 feet and which more likely to decide to try fishing pelican style by diving in?

High vs high and low: new CONOPS for P-8 and high level ASW? Cool. But why throw out decades of experience and institutional knowledge on low level ASW? You're betting on high altitude ASW, what if it doesn't work out? With the P-1 you have the option of going high or low, you can vary your tactics, you can use all that built up ASW knowledge, AND use the new high altitude tactics as well. Without worrying about whether the aircraft is properly stressed for extended low level operations. If the Indians are really planning on doing significant time low and slow, we'll find out how the P-8 does soon enough. Interesting that no one else seems keen to try though.

Radars: which is more useful to you, supplementing your AWACS and AEW aircraft, or ground radar? If you're an island nation, or have bases on a lot of islands, I think having patrol aircraft that can multi-role by also monitoring airspace might prove a useful capability for your MPAs to have. Japan has 4 AWACS and 14 E2s, that isn't enough to cover their entire airspace 24/7 in a crisis. A hundred MPAs that can supplement those AEW assets with their own air search radars could prove pretty useful. And if it's useful for Japan, why not the UK, or Australia, or NZ, or for that matter the US and it's massive coastline and island bases? P-8s with ground search radar might be useful in Afghanistan, or the Fulda Gap, but in the Pacific? AEW seems much more useful. And P-1 does have an integral AESA, rather than a large, draggy, heavy, payload reducing AESA radar pod. Personally I'd like to have both capabilities, but if I have to choose I'll take AEW over ground, and integral over massive pod.

Payload: peacetime, it doesn't matter how often they are loaded for bear. Wartime - it's a bit relevant. The P-8 can carry 4 harpoons on external pylons, none internally. For comparison, the aircraft they were both built to replace, the Lockheed P-7, was supposed to carry 12 on wing pylons. The P-3 has eight wing pylons. Even if it can't carry any internally (the bomb bay is bigger, but I don't know if it's long enough), that's still double the P-8. MPAs are also expected to do SUW, and while 8 (perhaps more) isn't as good as the P-7s 12, it's better than 4. It also means more torps for ASW, more mines for aerial minelaying, etc. When has "and we carry less stuff that goes boom" ever been a selling point for combat aircraft?

Aesthetics: you did see the smiley face, right? That's an indication not to take it too seriously. Besides, it's pretty when it flies:
I mean, how often do you see an aircraft that size described as "sprightly"?
 
Top