New Japanese MPA

[Firehorse]

New JSDF's Kawasaki P-1 will start replacing their P-3C

http://tsubotch.cocolog-nifty.com/photos/uncategorized/px001.jpg

http://aviationweek.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/03/1904px.gif

Once the new MPA are inducted, those surplus P-3C they'll replace with many airframe hours left may be also sold to Taiwan, in addition to ex-USN P-3s; and the older ones for spare parts.
IMO having 4 jet engines is better than just 2, as on proposed P-8A Poseidon. I suppose that the 2 outboard engines can be turned off inflight for longer loiter time, just like on a P-3.

 

[Todjaeger]

JSDF's Kawasaki P-1 will start replacing their P-3C

http://tsubotch.cocolog-nifty.com/photos/uncategorized/px001.jpg

http://aviationweek.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/03/1904px.gif

Once the new MPA are inducted, the surplus P-3C they'll replace with many airframe hours left may be sold to Taiwan, and the older ones for parts.
IMO having 4 jet engines is better than just 2, as on proposed P-8A Poseidon. The 2 outboard engines can be turned off inflight for longer loiter time, just like on a P-3.

A sale of Japanese P-3 MPA to Taiwan would likely need cooperation (if not outright approval) from the US. Such requirements on resale of defence equipment/tech with US origins are quite common and could cause delays or cancellation any sale (like the RNZAF A-4K Skyhawk sale).

As for the merits of a two engine vs. four engine MPA... That gets into a number of aerodynamic questions which I honestly am not qualified to answer. I would suggest though that it is not just as simple as being able to turn two engines off to increase loiter time, there are a number of variables that would come into play. Some examples would be how efficient the engines are, how much lift is required for the aircraft to remain aloft, how much fuel can be carried, etc. The ability to shut off two engines would require that the remaing two engines be able to generate sufficient lift to keep the MPA airborne. If the two engines are also able to provide sufficient lift at takeoff, then the aircraft could have been designed initially with just two engines instead. The result would have been a longer loiter time but reduced airspeed, similar to what is achieved by turning off two engines in flight...

As a rule, if a number of engines are included in a particular design, they are there for a reason.

-Cheers

 

[Firehorse]

legalities, # of engines

The bigger problems with regards to transfer of P-3s to a foreign party would be Japan's constitution, which currently prohibits military exports, and the impact of such sale on the relations with PRC. But in recent years there were significant changes to allow JSDF deploy abroad, and participate in collective defence with USA. Lastly, breaking with longstanding rule against stationing nuclear warships, the CVN-73 will replace CV-63 in Yokosuka next year. Another way it could be accomlished is to ship them back to the US for "conservation" and than, after some upgrades, they would or could be safely sold to Taiwan (or any other ally, for that matter).
As for 4 vs 2 engines, most 4-engine aircraft can take off on any 2 (with some Gross Weight Take Off limitations), so staying in the air on 2 or 3 engines, as P-3s often do, won't be a problem, IMO. However, I suspect the main reason for opting to have 4 engine MPA is safety- the areas they are going to patrol has capricious weather and there are long distances, plus sensors and weapons onboard need a lot of electrical power.

 

[swerve]

The bigger problems with regards to transfer of P-3s to a foreign party would be Japan's constitution, which currently prohibits military exports, ....

Not again! I seem to see this about once a week.

The Japanese constitution is entirely silent on the question of arms exports. There is no Japanese law prohibiting arms exports.

The law states that exports of weapons & dual-use equipment require licences. There is a very restrictive, & long-established, set of guidelines for the issuing of licences, but the guidelines are administrative, not law, & are sometimes changed by executive decision. All recent changes have been to make them less restrictive. If the government chose, it could, as far as the constitution & laws are concerned, relax the rules tomorrow to make arms exports almost unrestricted, without consulting the Diet - though that would cause a political crisis. Dual-use items are often exported, under licence, & certain categories of transfer are automatically issued licences, e.g. where there is a joint development between Japan & another country, Japanese weapons are automatically licenced to be shipped to the other country for use in development & testing.

Actually, you've worked out for yourself how P-3s could be exported without breaking the current rules. The USA is exempt from most of Japans arms export restrictions, so the P-3s could be sold to the USA without fuss. Despite being Japanese-built, the P-3s are a US design, & if the restricted Japanese equipment aboard was removed, the rules would not require a ban on re-export.

 

[swerve]

A sale of Japanese P-3 MPA to Taiwan would likely need cooperation (if not outright approval) from the US. Such requirements on resale of defence equipment/tech with US origins are quite common and could cause delays or cancellation any sale (like the RNZAF A-4K Skyhawk sale)....

-Cheers

In the case of US equipment, controls are universal. You never really buy US equipment, you just rent it, & the application of re-export rules is capricious, subject to the whim of congressmen with axes to grind, or firms in their districts which, for their own reasons (e.g. hoping to sell their own products) object to sales.

As for the engines - dunno which is the main reason, but fuel economy on patrol could well be a factor. Nimrods often cruise on two engines for that reason.

 

[Ophir]

The Kawasaki programme might become a serious competitor for the P-8 among those countries able to buy advanced MPA if Japan will license it for export; granted, the market for them is quite limited, but IMHO Australia and Canada might be interested in it… maybe New Zealand, if its military budget will allow buying such an expensive aircraft.

 

[MrConservative]

The military exports "ban" has been in place since the late 60s and was based on a purposive interpretation of the constitution - though technically it is not explicitly stated in the constitution itself. Originally the self imposed "ban" was a clarification of Article 9 by the Japanese Government of the day. It is from memory that the 'Japanese Government denounces war and will not actively promote the use of force to settle international disputes' (rough translation). The usage of the term 'actively promote' essentially introduced a constitutional convention and therefore not constitutionally entrenched. In the mid 70's this convention was extend or clarified more explicitly in which the Japanese Govt would indeed ban military exports. I cant remember if it was enacted into Legislation at that stage. In the eighties this "ban" was eased slightly in terms of the US over technology transfers as part of the US-Japan Security agreement. Incidently the pre constitution 1945 Basic Initial Surrender Directive arguably bans military exports if one takes a purposive approach.

 

[swerve]

... In the eighties this "ban" was eased slightly in terms of the US over technology transfers as part of the US-Japan Security agreement. ....

And has recently been amended to put other states with which Japan may, at some time in the future, undertake joint weapons development, in the same position as the USA. It had previously been weakened to permit Japanese peacekeeping troops to take weapons with them (the previous terms barred that), & a number of other easings.

The argument that the restriction on arms exports is based in the constitution, even though it does not explicitly mention them, is sound, but since it was imposed the constitution has been re-interpreted to permit collective self-defence, rather than purely national self-defence, which weakens the basis for the restriction. Nevertheless, it's certain that for the foreseeable future, if there are any Japanese weapons exports they will be restricted to close allies, & will be severely circumscribed. MPAs - maybe, at a pinch. Tanks? No chance. If you want Japanese weapons, the best (perhaps only) way to get hold of them will be to help Japan develop them.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Once the new MPA are inducted, those surplus P-3C they'll replace with many airframe hours left may be also sold to Taiwan, in addition to ex-USN P-3s

I'm not sure why Taiwan would want more P-3Cs - the 12 it has ordered from the USN's surplus stock will do the job. It would rather save the money for something else that it needs in the near future.

 

[Firehorse]

quantity

Well, since they've got only 2 subs and it will take years to get more, while China continues its overall naval buildup, and especially of SSNs/SSKs. More MPA should be their assimetric responce against both sub and surface threats, not to mention as platforms to deliver LACMs and for AWACS/AEW.
swerve, thank you for mentioning Nimrods!

One the aircraft's greatest assets is flight range - even without refuelling it can remain airborne for 10 hours with an operating range of 3,800 miles (6,080 km). It has a top speed of 575 mph (925 kph).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3758848.stm

IMO, another factor is speed- a 4-engine powered plane can arrive in the patrol area faster than 2 engine one, thus increasing time on station.

 

[swerve]

...swerve, thank you for mentioning Nimrods!
.

Well, it seemed relevant.

IMO, another factor is speed- a 4-engine powered plane can arrive in the patrol area faster than 2 engine one, thus increasing time on station.

Slight mistake - that's really a jet vs prop issue, not number of engines. A two jet engine P-8 or A320 MPA will be faster than a 4-engine prop-driven P-3.

 

[harryriedl]

New JSDF's Kawasaki P-1 will start replacing their P-3C

http://tsubotch.cocolog-nifty.com/photos/uncategorized/px001.jpg

http://aviationweek.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/03/1904px.gif

Once the new MPA are inducted, those surplus P-3C they'll replace with many airframe hours left may be also sold to Taiwan, in addition to ex-USN P-3s; and the older ones for spare parts.
IMO having 4 jet engines is better than just 2, as on proposed P-8A Poseidon. I suppose that the 2 outboard engines can be turned off inflight for longer loiter time, just like on a P-3.

shame the cold war's ended their would have been a much bigger market for MPA's if their was a cold war was still on

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Well, since they've got only 2 subs and it will take years to get more, while China continues its overall naval buildup.... more MPA should be their assimetric responce against both sub and surface threats, not to mention as platforms to deliver LACMs and for AWACS/AEW.

But that's upwards of $US 2 billion that can't be spent on new fighters, missile orders or indeed the new class of SSKs that Taiwan needs. This is the point - there's only so much money to go around.

Now if Taiwan had only ordered 6 P-3C Orions, I would agree that another order would be good. But at this point I think 12 is enough for its needs.

 

[Firehorse]

volnurability

Well,
If/when they get more SSKs, they'll still be outmached by the PLAN. To protect them while inport IMO they'll have to build hardened shelters, and when at sea I would have more MPA regardless. Moreover, with enough MPAs, having a number of P-3s in the air at all times and/or during a crisis will be more productive than having just 3-4 SSKs at sea at all times.
Anyway, this is slightly off topic! The new Japanese MPA- what do you think, will they build AEW version?

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Good gravy, how many times do I have to mention the fact extra patrol aircraft costs more? Taiwan has a limited budget and buying more P-3C Orions on top of what has been ordered is not a priority - end of story.

Now, as you say, back to the JMSDF's new baby.

 

[Firehorse]

Well, it seemed relevant.
Slight mistake - that's really a jet vs prop issue, not number of engines. A two jet engine P-8 or A320 MPA will be faster than a 4-engine prop-driven P-3.

No, I meant what I said: 4 jets will give more speed than 2 jets.
I heard the same about the P-8 vs P-3: - higher speed means more time in the patrol area. So, if we are to choose 2 jet engines or 4 jet engines for overwater ops, to be on the safe side we'd better choose the latter. Boeing choose B-737-800 for new MPA to save $ on development costs- currently there are no 4 engine models in production except B-747-8, which is not suitable for maritime patrol.

 

[swerve]

No, I meant what I said: 4 jets will give more speed than 2 jets.
I heard the same about the P-8 vs P-3: - higher speed means more time in the patrol area. So, if we are to choose 2 jet engines or 4 jet engines for overwater ops, to be on the safe side we'd better choose the latter. Boeing choose B-737-800 for new MPA to save $ on development costs- currently there are no 4 engine models in production except B-747-8, which is not suitable for maritime patrol.

No, there's no relationship between speed & number of engines. Speed is determined by drag, weight & thrust. How many engines you use to get the thrust (a smaller number of more powerful engines, or a larger number of smaller ones) is irrelevant.

But you're right about the P-8. Same principle applies to the EADS A320 MPA - the A340 is too big for the role, & developing a completely new aircraft was rejected as too expensive. Both P-8 & A320 have an inherent problem, in that the airframes are optimised for cruising at a fairly high speed (ca M0.8), in the interests of fuel efficiency for airline operations. This is fine for transit to a patrol area, but it's too fast for patrol. They can loiter, of course, but not ery efficiently.

 

[Firehorse]

videos

Well, I admit that the # of engines may not be directly connected with speed. But in any case, MPA don't have to be able to fly very fast anyway. However, the rate of climb is higher for > than 2 engines on any given airplane; hence this new MPA is going to attain optimal cruise altitude sooner than P-8, and it follows that it will arrive to its patrol area before P-8 does. I bet that P-8 can't fly as high as XP-1. The higher the ceiling of jet powered MPA, greater the speed!

Japan’s Kawasaki XP-1 patrol aircraft makes first flight

 

[gf0012-aust]

Well, I admit that the # of engines may not be directly connected with speed. But in any case, MPA don't have to be able to fly very fast anyway. However, the rate of climb is higher for > than 2 engines on any given airplane; hence this new MPA is going to attain optimal cruise altitude sooner than P-8, and it follows that it will arrive to its patrol area before P-8 does. I bet that P-8 can't fly as high as XP-1. The higher the ceiling of jet powered MPA, greater the speed!

Japan’s Kawasaki XP-1 patrol aircraft makes first flight

Huh? where did you come across the logic for this? Where did you factor in the economics of arriving on station between the two types?

How are you able to draw any conclusions against the P-8?

ie please provide the datasets you're using so that we can work out how you came to these conclusions.

MPA's are designed for loiter and depth of mission for their tasking. How often are MPA's on dash??

 

[buglerbilly]

I look at the Japanese MPA in its taxi and flight rials and the one thing that stands out for me is that it is tiny, or at least appears to be so?

Now this may provide for better robustness and greater rough/short field capability BUT to my mind it limits future growth allied to alternate maritime patrol ala mother ship for a number of aerial and sea/sub-sea umanned vehicles, OR even growth patterns for weapons and equipment seen on on P-3 during its life.

This may be an incorrect assumption but my half-arse Engineer's eye tells me they've unnecessarily built this plane too small/too short.

Regards,

BUG