Boeing to offer P-8 as CP-140 Replacement

[Good2Golf]

Don’t forget:

”For the love of God…”

 

[kev994]

The C-295 has an MPA variant.

Airbus presents C295 MPA as 'excellent' solution for surveillance requirements in S. Korea | Aju Press

SEOUL -- Airbus, a European aircraft manufacturer, presented its C295 Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) as an "excellent" solution for South Koreas surveillance requirements as it is equipped with state-of-the-art mission systems and comprehensive sensor suites and offers low risks and low...

www.ajudaily.com

Take the ones we already have!!

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Interesting how the RFI mentions they are considering a mixed fleet of either two aircraft types or one manned aircraft fleet and one UAS fleet.

Considering all the missions listed in the RFI, I would imagine it would be pretty hard to jam all that equipment into one airframe? Plus, trying to train operators in all the different systems.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Viking enters Chat Maritime Mission | Viking's Aerial Firefighter

Sounds like something the Coast Guard could use?

 

[dimsum]

Interesting how the RFI mentions they are considering a mixed fleet of either two aircraft types or one manned aircraft fleet and one UAS fleet.

At this point in the process, it's like brainstorming - they are just broad-brushing what they would like to see. Those 5 (I think) options pretty much encompass all the options possible.

The C-295 has an MPA variant.

Airbus presents C295 MPA as 'excellent' solution for surveillance requirements in S. Korea | Aju Press

SEOUL -- Airbus, a European aircraft manufacturer, presented its C295 Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) as an "excellent" solution for South Koreas surveillance requirements as it is equipped with state-of-the-art mission systems and comprehensive sensor suites and offers low risks and low...

www.ajudaily.com

Yeah, ask FWSAR how well that's going.

And that would be a far easier integration because they aren't hanging weapons or installing sonobuoy tubes.

Considering all the missions listed in the RFI, I would imagine it would be pretty hard to jam all that equipment into one airframe? Plus, trying to train operators in all the different systems.

Aside from ASuW (because the CP-140 can't launch missiles although the P-3 can), it's the exact same mission set as the Aurora right now. Adding ASuW wouldn't be a big issue, because other nations (USN, ROKN, etc) already did it. We actually got the hardpoints taken off.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

De Havilland launches Dash 8 P-4 maritime patrol aircraft - Air Data News

Or roll on/off maritime patrol kit for a c130 too someone was looking at developing.

There is no such thing as “roll on, roll off”. That is just marketing hype from manufacturers.

In reality, it is more like “roll off, break something expensive, find out that there are no spares, finally get a spare in 22 months, but by then everyone who remembers where all the bits and pieces went have retired or have been posted. Then when you finally do get it all back together, it takes weeks of test flying and troubleshooting to get it all working again”.


Allegedly.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Looking for some understanding here.
From what I can understand the CP-140 has a much better range and 'time on target' than the P-8, is that correct? The speed of both aircraft looks to be about the same. When comparing the P-8 to the Japanese P-1 from a speed and 'time on target' aspect it looks to be the better aircraft for us in those areas.
What other aircraft beside the P-8 is under consideration by us to replace the CP-140.

 

[Good2Golf]

There is no such thing as “roll on, roll off”. That is just marketing hype from manufacturers.

In reality, it is more like “roll off, break something expensive, find out that there are no spares, finally get a spare in 22 months, but by then everyone who remembers where all the bits and pieces went have retired or have been posted. Then when you finally do get it all back together, it takes weeks of test flying and troubleshooting to get it all working again”.


Allegedly.

Well…<1hr is pretty Rolly McRollface…

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Take the ones we already have!!

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Looking for some understanding here.
From what I can understand the CP-140 has a much better range and 'time on target' than the P-8, is that correct? The speed of both aircraft looks to be about the same. When comparing the P-8 to the Japanese P-1 from a speed and 'time on target' aspect it looks to be the better aircraft for us in those areas.
What other aircraft beside the P-8 is under consideration by us to replace the CP-140.

Range and On Station time; a bunch of factors there, so it could go either way depending. The USN P8s are intended to do higher altitudes for things including ASW; generally speaking you burn more fuel down low, or transitioning from low to high altitudes (eg - down lower to put a sink pattern in, climb to monitor the pattern/do some RMP work, etc). Generally speaking though, P8s can transit at higher altitudes which allows them better speed/sprint.

I know there’s a myth the P8 can’t work low; I’ve seen them at 200’ before; that’s pretty low. Not their optimal altitude but they can do it.

Speed - P8 wins.

Replacements; I don’t know and haven’t asked, to be honest. The last official thing I heard, a few years ago now, was that there were discussions with more than a half dozen companies.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Well…<1hr is pretty Rolly McRollface…

These are options we should be looking at IMO.

(Stack those cameras and lead that veh!!).

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Radar equipped, good combat record, minimal GHG foot print, easy maintenance, STOL performance, multiple hard points, stealth material construction, minimal basing requirements and excellent low speed loiter.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Radar equipped, good combat record, minimal GHG foot print, easy maintenance, STOL performance, multiple hard points, stealth material construction, minimal basing requirements and excellent low speed loiter.

Bathroom and galley leave some room for improvement…

 

[Spencer100]

Radar equipped, good combat record, minimal GHG foot print, easy maintenance, STOL performance, multiple hard points, stealth material construction, minimal basing requirements and excellent low speed loiter.

Hey it stopped the Bismark! So it's a battle proven design!

 

[armrdsoul77]

Kawasaki P1 was purpose built for the MPA role(not converted from a civilian airliner). That has to count for something.

 

[Good2Golf]

Kawasaki P1 was purpose built for the MPA role(not converted from a civilian airliner). That has to count for something.

Because an RCAF aircraft, like CH-146 Griffon was purpose built for the…..oh, never mind.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Aside from ASuW (because the CP-140 can't launch missiles although the P-3 can), it's the exact same mission set as the Aurora right now. Adding ASuW wouldn't be a big issue, because other nations (USN, ROKN, etc) already did it. We actually got the hardpoints taken off.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Hey it stopped the Bismark! So it's a battle proven design!

And sank alot of Italian ships at the first all-aircraft ship-to-ship naval attack in history at Taranto Battle of Taranto - Wikipedia

 

[Dana381]

Aside from ASuW (because the CP-140 can't launch missiles although the P-3 can), it's the exact same mission set as the Aurora right now. Adding ASuW wouldn't be a big issue, because other nations (USN, ROKN, etc) already did it. We actually got the hardpoints taken off.

I don't understand that decision, what was the reason for taking the hard points off? If you don't want to train operators for ASuW fine just font use them. Maybe someday you'll have a need for the hard points and now that is not an option.

Was the weight savings that significant to justify the removal?

Why not train for ASuW on the Aurora, seems like a good capability to have?

Weren't they also able to mount Ata missiles for self defense? I could see how that would be beneficial.

I'm asking because I'm truly curious as to the thought process behind this. I am sure the powers that be had a reason.

 

[KevinB]

I don't understand that decision, what was the reason for taking the hard points off? If you don't want to train operators for ASuW fine just font use them. Maybe someday you'll have a need for the hard points and now that is not an option.

Was the weight savings that significant to justify the removal?

Why not train for ASuW on the Aurora, seems like a good capability to have?

Weren't they also able to mount Ata missiles for self defense? I could see how that would be beneficial.

I'm asking because I'm truly curious as to the thought process behind this. I am sure the powers that be had a reason.

You are talking about the same Military that milled off the 12 O'clock rail off the .338LM C14 Timberwolf, because only DHTC at the time had inline clip on Night Vision and the Army didn't want anyone thinking it was a possibility.