UK requests P-8A's

[Radleigh]

The P-1 has the same wing as the Kawasaki C-2 transport so it's not exactly a 100% clean sheet MPA design.

The P-1 was built a few years before the two current C-2's though....?

[GMK]

Aren't both the P-1 & the P-8 MMA? Strictly speaking, neither are MPA.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Aren't both the P-1 & the P-8 MMA? Strictly speaking, neither are MPA.

That depends on your definition of 'multi mission' I suppose. Nimrod was always multi mission before it became trendy in that it could do ASW, ASuW, CT/MCT and SAR, as well as overland ISTAR with the EO/IR camera fitted. Generally though it was still viewed as an MPA and the P-1 fits the same mould.

P-8 on the other hand fills a much broader range of roles designed from the start to replace the P-3C and EP-3E, particularly if it's fitted with the 'Advanced Airborne Sensor' and the shadowy alternative pod http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-navys-p-8-poseidon-spotted-packing-mysterious-new-p-1718488424

[pigsty]

Two engines or four: the Shackleton and even the Nimrod date from the happy old days when the only reason people flew four-engined aircraft was because no-one made any with five engines. The P-8 is derived from an airliner that routinely flies the Atlantic without incident every day. Two engines are absolutely fine. Plus, of course, the air arm that bought over 500 P-3s with four engines was perfectly happy to have only two this time around. I wonder if they might just have a point?

Low-level -v- high-level: the USN is happy enough away from the spray. It's developing torpedoes that can be launched from a long way up - which isn't really all that novel in the great scheme of air-launched weapons - but, crucially, is also building up a companion capability vis the MQ-4 Triton. I shouldn't be at all surprised to find the RAF is exploring something along the same lines and, if it's not, the P-8I offers a way through.

New-build -v- derivative: I could have sworn we'd done this to death the last time this came up. But one very clear advantage is that the bulk of the development and certification is already paid for. Buying the P-1 means joining in with Japanese military procurement, which is frankly insane.

One thing I'm fairly sure of is, if the RAF were ordering the P-1, there would be crowds of people arguing every bit as emphatically that the P-8 was the only possible choice and to order the Japanese thing was treason.

[GMK]

I think the term MMA was coined because MPA understated precisely what the aircraft did.

Re. P-1 vs P-8: sometimes I think the preference is related to some reflexive "not American, again" sentiment I detect from time to time on UK fora.

As to "purpose built" vs "airliner-derived", didn't both the P-3 & the Nimrod had their origins as airliners? It seems a rather specious argument.

Arguably the last "purpose built" MPA operated by the RAF was the Neptune!

[Paul J]

I suppose it keeps it in the family... All Boeings...E-3( entry) and EC/RC-135 for example and now the P-8. Hmm.

[Ascoteer]

As to "purpose built" vs "airliner-derived", didn't both the P-3 & the Nimrod had their origins as airliners? It seems a rather specious argument.

There is a huge difference between a 1950s airliner wing (and its strength and ability to operate in low level turbulent conditions) than there is in a relatively modern flexible airliner wing. The 2 are hugely different.

As to Séan's argument about dropping torpedoes from medium level. Yeah that will work, but only with a hugely expensive (unrecoverable) deployment vector. It's not like we've never done something like that before.

But....

Oh yes, we have, it was called the CAMBS buoy, so expensive it could not be dropped in peacetime for training purposes.

[Shane]

As to Séan's argument about dropping torpedoes from medium level. Yeah that will work, but only with a hugely expensive (unrecoverable) deployment vector. It's not like we've never done something like that before.

But....

Oh yes, we have, it was called the CAMBS buoy, so expensive it could not be dropped in peacetime for training purposes.

Yeah, and there's been hardly *any* advances in technology in the intervening 30 years.

Shane

[GMK]

There is a huge difference between a 1950s airliner wing (and its strength and ability to operate in low level turbulent conditions) than there is in a relatively modern flexible airliner wing. The 2 are hugely different.

No argument with what you've written, but that's not the point that was put. Reducing the discussion to "airliner-derived" & "purpose designed/built" simplifies the discussion to the point of the banal.

The actual point may well be:

"Legacy sensor, surveillance, & detection technologies have required extended patrols at low level by traditional MPA. Thankfully, most platforms to date were based upon 1940/50's airliner designs that were significantly over-engineered, making them suitable for prolonged, low altitude employment in the MPA role.

If MMA, as replacement of legacy MPA, are intended to be employed in the same flight regime, modern, airliner-derived structures may not be suitable. This may make a dedicated platform, such as the P-1, more suitable for this role, purely from an airframe perspective."

If, however, the MMA employment is significantly different due to changes in technology, discussions regarding airframe structures are largely irrelevant.

[magwitch]

Arguably the last "purpose built" MPA operated by the RAF was the Neptune!

The Neptune was adapted from the Ventura Navy patrol bomber so that wasn't 100% MPA either!

[GMK]

The Neptune was adapted from the Ventura Navy patrol bomber so that wasn't 100% MPA either!

And the Sunderland was a derivative of the Empire Class!

Bugger.

[Britman]

I would like to see how much Ventura one could ring out of a Neptune!

[keefr22]

The Neptune was adapted from the Ventura Navy patrol bomber so that wasn't 100% MPA either!

And it still only had two engines ....!!

[Truro Model Builder]

Until they bolted a J34 under each wing as well...

And technically the last non-airliner derived MPA the RAF used was the Shackleton MR.3.

According to a rather interesting article on the P-8 in the latest Air Forces Monthly medium altitude ASW ops will commence with Increment 2 as Increment 1 only allows for the Harpoon ASM and the Mk.54 torpedo as employed on the P-3C. Increment 2 will introduce new weapons that can be deployed from medium altitude, with Increment 3 moving to high altitude ops. Interestingly the USN have placed a lot more emphasis on ASW operations in the P-8 than in recent P-3 ops, though it is slated to partially replace the EP-3E as well. The RAF too is looking to it primarily as an MPA/ASW aircraft, with other taskings as a secondary capability. I have no doubt that medium/high altitude ASW ops will be made to work, but the USN is also looking at integrating the P-8 with the MQ-4C Triton UAV to prosecute ASW at low level, which would suggest they are not entirely convinced themselves.

Lastly, re: 2v4 engines. Yes, I know that modern engines are so much more reliable etc, and I have crossed the pond on a pair of turbofans on more than one occasion, but if I was halfway out over the Atlantic and one of my two engines decided to go on holiday, it would be a VERY long and discomfiting journey to the nearest coastline, accompanied by Hail Marys, the rattling of rosaries and the realisation that adrenalin is brown after all.

[Seahawk]

And technically the last non-airliner derived MPA the RAF used was the Shackleton MR.3.

Ah, but weren't the wings off the Tudor?

PS More Tudor in a Shackleton than Ventura in a Neptune, I reckon.

[magwitch]

Ah, but weren't the wings off the Tudor?

PS More Tudor in a Shackleton than Ventura in a Neptune, I reckon.

The Shackleton was based on the Tudor fuselage. Is the Atlantique the only pureblood MPA/MMA?

[hovis]

I thought the point of having 4 engines was that when you reached your patrol area, you could shut down 2 or 3 and therefore save fuel and increase time on station?

Try that in a P8.

[Truro Model Builder]

I thought the point of having 4 engines was that when you reached your patrol area, you could shut down 2 or 3 and therefore save fuel and increase time on station?

Try that in a P8.

It would be fun for all of twenty seconds before the pilots lit them up again.

But yes, that was always a recognised operating procedure for four engined MPAs. Maybe P-8 crews shut down one engine?

[keefr22]

I thought the point of having 4 engines was that when you reached your patrol area, you could shut down 2 or 3 and therefore save fuel and increase time on station?

Try that in a P8.

On the other hand, modern engines are so much more fuel efficient than previous generations it might be that the P8 may well have better range & endurance than a two engined Nimrod or P3?

[Roland Pulfrew]

Ah, but weren't the wings off the Tudor?

PS More Tudor in a Shackleton than Ventura in a Neptune, I reckon.

I thought the Shack was based on the Lincoln, or did I miss a stage in development somewhere?

[pigsty]

The Shackleton was based on the Tudor fuselage. Is the Atlantique the only pureblood MPA/MMA?

Say what?

The Shackleton's fuselage effectively started as a Lancaster cut in two lengthwise with a section spliced into the middle. The wing was essentially the Lincoln's with extended bits, which doubled up as the Tudor's wing (and, oddly, the Argosy's). They got a lot of mileage out of good ideas in Hawker Siddeley.

But the Shackleton was indeed one of the very few purpose-built maritime aircraft, the others being (off the top of my head) the Neptune, the Atlantic/Atlantique, and now the P-1. All the rest were derived from airliners or bombers - the P-3, the Il-38, the Tu-142, the Argus, the Nimrod, and possibly more. Which is one reason why the complaint that the P-8 is a 737 in drag, oh my god what is the world coming to, is pretty specious.

As it's been raised, I suspect the only common part between the PV and the P2V was the manufacturer's address on the data plates, though I can't prove it.

[Britman]

Your all forgetting the Felixstowe! Famous for its dash speed to station and single engine loiter. .....

[Vlamgat9]

I thought the point of having 4 engines was that when you reached your patrol area, you could shut down 2 or 3 and therefore save fuel and increase time on station?

Try that in a P8.

Surely the reason was that in a two engine MPA if you lose one engine you have to head for home whereas in a 4 engine MPA you can remain on station?

Which made a lot of sense when engines were a lot less reliable than they are today.

[colin]

Until they bolted a J34 under each wing as well...

And technically the last non-airliner derived MPA the RAF used was the Shackleton MR.3.

According to a rather interesting article on the P-8 in the latest Air Forces Monthly medium altitude ASW ops will commence with Increment 2 as Increment 1 only allows for the Harpoon ASM and the Mk.54 torpedo as employed on the P-3C. Increment 2 will introduce new weapons that can be deployed from medium altitude, with Increment 3 moving to high altitude ops. Interestingly the USN have placed a lot more emphasis on ASW operations in the P-8 than in recent P-3 ops, though it is slated to partially replace the EP-3E as well. The RAF too is looking to it primarily as an MPA/ASW aircraft, with other taskings as a secondary capability. I have no doubt that medium/high altitude ASW ops will be made to work, but the USN is also looking at integrating the P-8 with the MQ-4C Triton UAV to prosecute ASW at low level, which would suggest they are not entirely convinced themselves.

Lastly, re: 2v4 engines. Yes, I know that modern engines are so much more reliable etc, and I have crossed the pond on a pair of turbofans on more than one occasion, but if I was halfway out over the Atlantic and one of my two engines decided to go on holiday, it would be a VERY long and discomfiting journey to the nearest coastline, accompanied by Hail Marys, the rattling of rosaries and the realisation that adrenalin is brown after all.

But would you be that far out in the Atlantic in the first place doing it's intended role

[Truro Model Builder]

But would you be that far out in the Atlantic in the first place doing it's intended role

The P-8 is designed to have a combat radius of 1200 nautical miles and then spend four hours on station. But, in any case, you go where the threat (or need) is, and the whole point of long range MPA is that the Atlantic Gap is a dim and distant memory.