Military Aviation News and Discussion

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Ukraine and Turkey are working together on a new Antonov AN-188 four engine turbo fan transport with a range of around 3,800 nm and a max load capacity of 35 tonnes. The aircraft is a variant of the AN-170, with four contra-rotating scimitar propellers making it some what noisy. The interesting thing about the AN-188 is that it is being built to NATO standards and can have the D-436-148FM turbofan engines, AI-28 new-generation engines, or CFM International LEAP high-bypass turbofan aircraft engines. Now if they could scale up the aircraft to carry another 20 - 30 tonne, they could be on to a winner, especially if built to NATO standards using western engines.
A new 4 engine turbo-fan with a 35 ton capacity....hmm? Why not a twin with 30 tons, KC390? As for a AN-188 able to carry 55-60 tons, maybe. However, if possible, buying the C-17 design might be a better option if Antonov could keep the costs down, especially when competing against China's C-17 clone.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Err . . . if you look up the published stats, you see that it's reckoned to carry a lot more than a KC-390, & significantly further, which is what one would expect from a much bigger, heavier, aircraft. I've not seen any figures from Embraer claiming 30 tons for KC-390: 26 tons maximum. The 35 tons figure for An-188 doesn't seem to be the maximum total cargo weight, but the heaviest single item - but the description is vague.

C-17 is out of production.
 

barney41

Member
Boeing has come to the rescue of Antonov, infusing badly needed resources. It would be a shame if Antonov went away, it occupies a unique niche in the Industry.



Boeing steps in to help Ukrainian manufacturer of world's biggest plane – media

Boeing stepped in to rescue the Ukrainian plane maker Antonov, known for producing the world's largest aircraft.
The firm had ceased production because of its heavy reliance on Russian imports, which had collapsed after Moscow's annexation of Crimea in 2014, CNBC TV Channel reported.

But, Boeing's parts, equipment and services unit, Aviall, is set to now provide the components and Antonov plans to build eight aircraft a year from the end of next year. The deal, which was signed at the Farnborough International Airshow, was confirmed to CNBC via email on Friday.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I do believe (barring new/additional orders) the P-8A Poseidon line will be shutting down in the next few years (2022-ish) and due to long-lead items, orders need to be placed basically now or in the next couple of months.

Having said that though, I would not be surprised if Boeing would be able to developed a newer, P-8BCD Poseidon version using the body of a newer Boeing 737 MAX airliner mated to an appropriate wing. Not unlike how the P-8A Poseidon is a modified 737-800 body with a modified 737-900 wing.
Yes, Boeing could develop a newer version of the P-8 based on the MAX but are there enough potential orders to make it worth their while? IMO France and Germany won't buy and the remaining tier two customers will probably opt for the Saab/business jet option assuming Airbus is smart enough to stay out of this.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Yes, Boeing could develop a newer version of the P-8 based on the MAX but are there enough potential orders to make it worth their while? IMO France and Germany won't buy and the remaining tier two customers will probably opt for the Saab/business jet option assuming Airbus is smart enough to stay out of this.
IMO yes, there is the potential at least for enough orders to make such development worthwhile.

AFAIK much of the difficulty and expense in developing surveillance platforms like the RAAF's E-7 Wedgetail, or the P-8 Poseidon stems from the difficulties and costs associated with developing and integrating the avionics, sensors and mission systems.

In the case of both the E-7 Wedgetail, and the P-8 Poseidon, the most complex work has already been done and should there be future interest in such aircraft after production of the B737-700 and -800 series bodies, and the B737-800 and -900 wings have also ceased, IMO it would be a comparatively inexpensive and simple development to fit the avionics, sensors and mission systems to modified versions of the B737-MAX series of aircraft which themselves are similar to the earlier B737 versions.

Now it does seem likely that France and Germany will have to replace their current MPA fleets in the early to mid 2030's, assuming that they wish to maintain such a capability. Airbus has recently announced that they are evaluating developing a military version of the A320neo which has been referred to as M3A to carry out "a range of ISR missions" as well as able to be fitted with modular ro-ro payloads to airlift cargo and passengers in troop, VIP or medevac configurations. What I am much less certain of is whether or not Airbus would be able to develop a military version of the A320neo (or other member of the A320 family) which would both be able to meet the capability requirements as the replacement MPA, and be in production in time to replace the MPA fleets of France and Germany.

Assuming that initial replacements need to enter service in 2032 (for France IIRC) looking at the numbers, that leaves 14 years systems design, development and integration, and the aircraft production. Looking at the timeline of the programme which led to the P-8 Poseidon being developed, it started in 2000, with the Boeing entry being selected in 2004, first flight in 2009, and entry into service in 2013. Now with US defence programmes, the DoD has an enormous amount of input to ensure that it gets the capabilities it wants. Looking at Airbus and some of the Euro consortium defence programmes, it does seem that when different nations provide their input and/or requirements, it can drag out the development and/or increase the difficulty. The A400M seems to provide a particularly painful and drawn out example of this, since the initial programme was started in 1982, there was a shakeup in the participating aerospace partners in 1989, a first flight in 2009, and initial entry into service in 2013 (31 years after programme start and IIRC not quite meeting programme requirements). Now if I am reading and understanding things correctly (always a risk, since I might very well not be...) Airbus and Saab for that matter, are or will be engaging in some commercial speculation in developing military aircraft for ISR and MPA/surveillance roles, since they see a potential market for such aircraft.

From my perspective, there is considerable risk for aerospace manufacturers to develop ISR aircraft on their own without gov't funding or support. For one thing, without such funding and support then the costs to develop the aircraft are carried entirely by the developing company. This in turn leads either to the company potentially expending significant funding designing and developing the aircraft without any guarantees that orders for it will be placed, or that comparatively minimal design and development work will be done to avoid excessive expenditures. IMO the Saab/Bombardier Swordfish/Global 6000 MPA is an example of the later since it only exists as a 'paper aeroplane' with no physical prototypes currently planned, never mind in production, testing or flight. Another area of significant potential danger developing a speculative ISR platform is that without gov't input on what ISR capabilities are required/desired, the designing aerospace company could completely undershoot or overshoot what the gov'ts might desire or require.

If the capability is deemed insufficient by gov't, then the gov't might go with a competing ISR platform submission, in which case all the resources the aerospace company expended were basically wasted, or gov't might require a redesign in which case only some of the resources might be wasted.

If the capability exceeds what gov't requires, it could again want a redesign to a reduced specification assuming that would cost less, or opt for a less capable and lower costing competing design.

And of course there is also the very possible and major risk that the expected gov't purchases might never materialize, since the targeted gov't might decide they do not have the need for such an ISR capability, they cannot afford it, or that they have opted to meet the ISR capability an alternate way, or a combination thereof.

Hit 10k character limit, see 2nd/follow-up post.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Cont'd from above, initial post exceeded 10k character limit.

I also have a couple of other thoughts. The first is that, while I might be wrong about this, I do not realistically foresee Saab/Bombardier Swordfish/Global 6000 MPA being built in any quantity more than a handful of aircraft, if it happens at all IMO. This is despite the exuberance displayed in this very thread back in March. I am basing this opinion on several factors. This first is overall capability, in which I have come across statements (from Saab IIRC) that the Swordfish/Global 6000 is not intended as a direct competitor for the Boeing P-8 Poseidon, and that the Swordfish/Global 6000 will not have the same level of capabilities as the Poseidon, which has set a new standard by which maritime patrol aircraft are measured. Relating to that, while I expect the Swordfish/Global 6000 to cost less than a Poseidon to acquire, based upon estimates I have made using the similar Global 6000-based Saab Globaleye, I would expect a Swordfish/Global 6000 to cost ~80% of a Poseidon. For armed forces requiring an advanced MPA capability now and into the future, that estimated 20% savings per aircraft would be wiped out over the life of the aircraft when trying to upgrade a much smaller user base to keep them current in terms of capabilities. For those nations which do not need an MPA as capable as the Swordfish/Global 6000 in the first place, there are a number of MPA platforms currently available with lesser capabilities and significantly lower costs. As an example, the HC-144A Ocean Sentry version of the CN-235 MP costs ~USD$50 mil., which is 25% of the USD$200 mil. flyaway price I estimate a Swordfish/Global 6000 would be. Also, I consider it worth noting that Sweden has not operated MPA or ASW aircraft (fixed-wing or helicopter) in several years at the least, having formerly operated such versions of the CH-46 Sea Knight and C-212 Aviocar. Relating to that, Saab has not to my knowledge, ever developed an MPA/ASW aircraft before, which introduces the potential of a steeper learning curve than expected to achieve certain capability outputs in an MPA or ASW aircraft.

The second thought is that, while I fully expect given time and funding, Airbus could develop an MPA-version of an A320-family aircraft with capabilities comparable to what a P-8 Poseidon is capable of, I am much less certain of whether that could be done as quickly or as competitively priced as either a current P-8 Poseidon or one based upon the body/wings of a new B737 MAX. Even if all current Euro operators of P-3 Orion and Atlantique 2 MPA, as well as the RCAF got together to order a 1:1 MPA replacement, the total number of MPA ordered would likely be at least several less than the number of Kawasaki P-1 MPA's ordered by Japan, never mind the total number of P-8 Poseidons ordered by the US, not including any international orders for the P-8. This IMO would be significant because there would be a lower number of aircraft along with a large number of different users, so the initial development costs would likely be higher, and future developments and upgrades would likely be either more limited in scope, have a higher cost per aircraft, or quite possibly both. With Airbus producing or assembling aircraft in France and Germany, and avionics, mission systems and aircraft components likely being sourced from across Europe, I would expect a somewhat higher cost per aircraft for a future Euro MPA to be acceptable, up to a point. However, if the cost per aircraft for an Airbus MPA were to be significantly higher (50% or more) than what a new version of a P-8 Poseidon could be had for, and/or the projected capabilities were significantly less, then I could see even France or Germany opting for Poseidons. Other current Orion or Orion-variant users like Canada, Portugal or Spain, all of which would likely have much less of a stake in producing an Airbus MPA, would IMO be even more likely to opt for a newer version of a Poseidon if/when the decisions were to be made.

The last thought which currently comes to mind is what the state of Airbus production might be, when the time to place orders would arrive. Assuming that production/final assembly would be done in Europe (as opposed to Airbus facilities in the US or the PRC which produce A320-family aircraft), that would occur in either Hamburg (A318, A319, A321-based aircraft) or Toulouse (A320-based aircraft). If the plant(s) producing and assembling the specific aircraft bodies and components used as a base for the Airbus MPA (likely the A320neo) already have significant civilian orders booked, that could cause delays in Airbus being able to produce the MPA, or possibly require the construction of a new production facility which could in turn drive the MPA price even higher.

I am not saying that Airbus could not, should not, or would not be able to design and produce a 1st tier MPA that would be competitive with a Boeing Poseidon entry, but I do see quite a few potential hurdles which would need to be overcome, and IMO these hurdles are sufficient to enable Boeing provide potential competition even after the current Poseidon production line ceases.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
IMO yes, there is the potential at least for enough orders to make such development worthwhile.
How many orders do you think are possible? Although allies bought P-3s in significant numbers, it is unlikely many will renew their fleets and if they do, it will be something less capable than a P-8 IMO. Certainly there is probably a market for a P-8 successor or Airbus alternative but is it enough, maybe for Boeing but Airbus, I just can't see it being worthwhile.

AFAIK much of the difficulty and expense in developing surveillance platforms like the RAAF's E-7 Wedgetail, or the P-8 Poseidon stems from the difficulties and costs associated with developing and integrating the avionics, sensors and mission systems.
I think this is why a new version of the P-8 might be worthwhile. Airbus would have to develop all this for a relatively small fleet.

Now it does seem likely that France and Germany will have to replace their current MPA fleets in the early to mid 2030's, assuming that they wish to maintain such a capability. Airbus has recently announced that they are evaluating developing a military version of the A320neo which has been referred to as M3A to carry out "a range of ISR missions" as well as able to be fitted with modular ro-ro payloads to airlift cargo and passengers in troop, VIP or medevac configurations. What I am much less certain of is whether or not Airbus would be able to develop a military version of the A320neo (or other member of the A320 family) which would both be able to meet the capability requirements as the replacement MPA, and be in production in time to replace the MPA fleets of France and Germany.
Airbus could develop something suitable but not at a price either France or Germany would be willing to pay based on the likely production number. Although the A400M is a more complicated project tan a MPA/ASW platform is likely to be, it troubled development does not inspire confidence with regard to a possible alternative from Airbus.


From my perspective, there is considerable risk for aerospace manufacturers to develop ISR aircraft on their own without gov't funding or support. For one thing, without such funding and support then the costs to develop the aircraft are carried entirely by the developing company. This in turn leads either to the company potentially expending significant funding designing and developing the aircraft without any guarantees that orders for it will be placed, or that comparatively minimal design and development work will be done to avoid excessive expenditures.
Absolutely agree.

However, if the cost per aircraft for an Airbus MPA were to be significantly higher (50% or more) than what a new version of a P-8 Poseidon could be had for, and/or the projected capabilities were significantly less, then I could see even France or Germany opting for Poseidons. Other current Orion or Orion-variant users like Canada, Portugal or Spain, all of which would likely have much less of a stake in producing an Airbus MPA, would IMO be even more likely to opt for a newer version of a Poseidon if/when the decisions were to be made.
Yep

IMO the Saab/Bombardier Swordfish/Global 6000 MPA is an example of the later since it only exists as a 'paper aeroplane' with no physical prototypes currently planned, never mind in production, testing or flight.
Not sure which is more paper at this point, the Saab/Global 6000 or the Airbus M3A. However, if the former is 80% of the cost of a P-8, it could remain a paper project.:D

I am not saying that Airbus could not, should not, or would not be able to design and produce a 1st tier MPA that would be competitive with a Boeing Poseidon entry, but I do see quite a few potential hurdles which would need to be overcome, and IMO these hurdles are sufficient to enable Boeing provide potential competition even after the current Poseidon production line ceases.
Way more hurdles for Airbus. Potential buyers should act now, not wait for Poseidon 2.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #148
If Airbus start with MOTS sensors, systems etc., their FITS combats system, COTS systems where possible, they could role out quite a reasonably priced capability by not doing anything to adventurous. Then undertake spiral upgrades so that costs are kept down in the long term. If the hardware and software are open architecture then most upgrades could be software based reducing the amount of times the aircraft has to be taken apart to replace bits.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
True, but there are lots of integration costs and the fleet will relatively small. There is also the issue of what the lead customers want which might drive development costs higher still. If customers and Airbus are on the same page from the getgo then an alternative is possible but the cost will be higher than a P-8 and probably a P-8 version 2 should Boeing decide to do so. If I was an Airbus shareholder, a M3A project would not inspire confidence for the stock price.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
... IMO the Saab/Bombardier Swordfish/Global 6000 MPA is an example of the later since it only exists as a 'paper aeroplane' with no physical prototypes currently planned, never mind in production, testing or flight. ....
There's a SAAB-modified Global 6000 currently flying (since 14-03-2018) with a Leonardo Seaspray 7500E radar & other maritime/surface search sensors (FLIR, at least) integrated into a combat system. It also has an Erieye ER radar on the back, but that'd be left off of the Swordfish MPA.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
If Airbus start with MOTS sensors, systems etc., their FITS combats system, COTS systems where possible, they could role out quite a reasonably priced capability by not doing anything to adventurous. Then undertake spiral upgrades so that costs are kept down in the long term. If the hardware and software are open architecture then most upgrades could be software based reducing the amount of times the aircraft has to be taken apart to replace bits.
Yes, just carry over the latest iteration of what they're putting on other platforms into a modified airframe, & keep updating. As I understand it, Airbus has integrated quite a few different pieces of kit with FITS, in a few different airframes: CN-235, C-295 & P-3, at least.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
How many orders do you think are possible? Although allies bought P-3s in significant numbers, it is unlikely many will renew their fleets and if they do, it will be something less capable than a P-8 IMO. Certainly there is probably a market for a P-8 successor or Airbus alternative but is it enough, maybe for Boeing but Airbus, I just can't see it being worthwhile.
Honestly it is hard to say, since a fair bit of it would involve the state of affairs in the world. First, any potential A320neo M3A customers who want an ISR or MPA platform would be potential customers. Second, existing P-8A Poseidon customers might also be interested, depending on the costs and benefits/advantages of the new P-8 Poseidon, not unlike happened with the P-3 Orion. IIRC the RAAF had originally ordered and operated the P-3B Orion, but replaced them with the P-3C Orion and (again, IIRC) sold at least some of the P-3B Orion's to NZ, which are now in service as P-3K2 Orion's. I can see the potential for current P-8A Poseidon operator selling their fleet of P-8A's and replacing them with a newer version of the P-8 if the costs of new aircraft are both reasonable and provide advantages in terms of aircraft/mission performance, and/or operating costs. The 2nd hand P-8A Poseidon's might then be snapped up to expand the existing fleets of other P-8A operators, or by those countries who might have been interested in the P-8A initially but were put off or unable to afford the ~USD$250 mil. price tag per aircraft.

I also could see existing Poseidon operators ordering some of a newer model Poseidon just to expand their numbers/fleet size. If the situation with the PRC in the SCS and/or ECS continues to worsen, or if relations Russia get frostier, then I could the US and/or Australia looking to augment their Poseidon numbers, as might the UK or NZ. Similarly, if the world security situation goes back to what it had looked like during parts of the Cold War (an all too real possibility IMO) then a number of former MPA operators like the Netherlands and Italy might decide that they really need to regain that capability.

Something else worth considering is that the P-8 Poseidon airframe was required to support a 25+ year service life, which the first examples delivered would start reaching circa 2038. Going off the lengthy service lives of the P-3 Orions, a SLEP could likely be developed to extend the airframe life, but some operators like the USN might prefer to replace such aircraft rather than extend their service lives.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
If Airbus start with MOTS sensors, systems etc., their FITS combats system, COTS systems where possible, they could role out quite a reasonably priced capability by not doing anything to adventurous. Then undertake spiral upgrades so that costs are kept down in the long term. If the hardware and software are open architecture then most upgrades could be software based reducing the amount of times the aircraft has to be taken apart to replace bits.
AND

Yes, just carry over the latest iteration of what they're putting on other platforms into a modified airframe, & keep updating. As I understand it, Airbus has integrated quite a few different pieces of kit with FITS, in a few different airframes: CN-235, C-295 & P-3, at least.
From my POV, while this could be a path for Airbus to develop an MPA based off an A320-family aircraft body at a reduced cost and likely lower risk, it would also be more likely to provide a tier 2 MPA capability albeit with faster response time and potentially greater range/loiter time.

AFAIK the sensor and mission system packages found in existing Euro maritime patrol aircraft like ATR 72MP, ATR 42MP, CN-235MP/MPA, or C-295MP/MPA cannot really provide the same quality or quantity of capabilities as some of the later Orion upgrades like the AP-3C Orion in RAAF service, never mind have performance capabilities which would approach or match that of a P-8 Poseidon. Part of the issue with the systems capabilities is that I just do not see any existing European programmes which would have as an objective to push sensing capabilities as far along like some US programmes which resulted in the development of the APY-10 radar fitted to the P-8A Poseidon, the APS-149 Littoral Surveillance Radar system which the US did not acknowledge existed for a long time, or the Advanced Airborne Sensor (which I think has been referred to as the APS-156) which was developed from the APS-149. In essence, Euro designs mostly seem to rely upon what MOTS sensors are available or have been/are being developed by defence avionics companies. Such systems are of course workable and can provide good capabilities and iterative improvements over preceding designs and versions, but they are much less likely to be able to provide a significant 'jump' in capability when compared with a system which had significant R&D efforts put into it to specifically increase it's capabilities.

I would take it as a given that any Euro-designed MPA based off the body of an airliner from the Airbus A320-family would not be able compete with existing Euro prop-based MPA in terms of price, in fact the pricing would not even be remotely close. It appears the 2018 unit cost for a new A320neo is ~USD$110 mil. which is a little more than twice the USD$51 mil. price tag Italian Customs signed for an ATR 72MP with logistics and training support about a month ago. With that significantly higher cost in mind, I would expect any potential customers to want (or demand) significantly greater capabilities beyond what current platforms can offer. It would be unreasonable to expect customers to pay more than twice the initial acquisition cost and have higher ongoing operating and support costs if the new platform only has a somewhat longer range and potentially longer loiter time and a faster response time.

Using the P-8 Poseidon as an example, the sensors like the APY-10, APS-149 and then AAS provide greater detection capability than had been available in prior platforms, with the caveat that the APS-149 had been fitted to some USN P-3C Orions. In a similar fashion, the Poseidon can carry more sonobuoys (30% more according to the manufacturer) than previous MPA platforms and IMO of greater significance is that the onboard acoustic processor has twice the capability of previous acoustic processors, able to hand five sonobuoy networks active at the same time, which IIRC could mean ~60 sonobuoys in the water at once.

Airbus IMO could achieve a similar level of capability, but it would require a committed effort to do so, as well as commitments by potential customers to justify the effort required to develop the capability.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
There's a SAAB-modified Global 6000 currently flying (since 14-03-2018) with a Leonardo Seaspray 7500E radar & other maritime/surface search sensors (FLIR, at least) integrated into a combat system. It also has an Erieye ER radar on the back, but that'd be left off of the Swordfish MPA.
I am aware that the first flight of a Saab GlobalEye AEW aircraft was earlier this year and that the GlobalEye uses the aircraft body of a Bombardier Global 6000. What is unclear and I have not been able to confirm one way or another is which of the three GlobalEye configurations the UAE ordered. Some sources state that the UAE ordered AEW&C plus ground surveillance/ISR GlobalEyes, while other sources state that the aircraft is equipped with the Seaspray 7500E maritime surveillance radar. If the UAE ordered the ELINT/SIGINT focused third configuration of the GlobalEye, then the aircraft likely would not actually be kitted out with the Seaspray 7500E radar. OTOH if the configuration ordered was the one with increased maritime and ground capabilities then it would like be fitted with the Seaspray 7500E, which is also the maritime surveillance radar proposed for use in the Saab/Bombardier Swordfish/Global 6000 MPA.

A few points that I feel are worth noting and reminders others of regarding similarities and differences between the Saab GlobalEye and proposed Swordfish/Global 6000 MPA. One of the first is that it looks like about half the sensor configuration fitted or intended for a maritime/ground surveillance GlobalEye will be in common with half the sensor configuration for a Swordfish/Global 6000 MPA. Where they would differ is that the GlobalEye has the Erieye ER AESA and perhaps some ELINT/SIGIN ESM systems and the relevant work stations, while the Swordfish would have an acoustic processor, onboard sonobuoys and sonobuoy dropping system and a MAD boom, and of course the appropriate work stations. The Swordfish (lacking a bomb bay) would also need both hard points for the external carriage of munitions like AShM, LWT and depth bombers, but also a work station or stations suitable to interface and deploy/control the munitions. A final point, which I have made previously but feel that it is worth repeating, is that when the UAE ordered a single, third GlobalEye as announced back in January 2017 the cost for the single addition to the two already on order for the UAE was USD$236 mil.

I have included a PDF from Saab about the GlobalEye, as well as Saab's Swordfish/Global 6000 factsheet, please note on the factsheet that the aircraft performance data in terms of mission profile and conditions in terms of range and time on station is with with no external stores. This in turn means that the mission profile would be that of a MPS aircraft and unable to engage any hostile hostile subs or vessels detected and therefore unable to meet ASW or ASuW role requirements. Also given the layout of the Global 6000 aircraft and lack of a bomb bay, it appears unlikely a Swordfish/Global 6000 could carry and deploy a UNI-PAC II air-dropped survival kit like a USN P-8A Poseidon deployed in February of this year having located a missing fishing vessel adrift near the Federated States of Micronesia. Given that the UNI-PAC II is a semi-rigid canister, I suspect it would be inappropriate or unable to withstand the forces associated with external stores carriage. It might be possible for a Swordfish on a SAR mission to carry and deploy a Skymaster or Skymaster II UNI-PAC as they are designed for external carriage and deployment, albeit from Cessna O-2 Skymasters and E-2C Hawkeyes or S-2 Trackers , all of which have max speeds lower (often significantly) than the projected long-range cruise speed of a Swordfish.
 

Attachments

swerve

Super Moderator
I am aware that the first flight of a Saab GlobalEye AEW aircraft was earlier this year and that the GlobalEye uses the aircraft body of a Bombardier Global 6000. What is unclear and I have not been able to confirm one way or another is which of the three GlobalEye configurations the UAE ordered. Some sources state that the UAE ordered AEW&C plus ground surveillance/ISR GlobalEyes, while other sources state that the aircraft is equipped with the Seaspray 7500E maritime surveillance radar. ....
The Globaleye aircraft shown to the press in February, complete with UAEAF markings, was explicitly stated by SAAB to have both an electro-optical sensor (camera lingers on it) & surface search radar (camera focuses on radome below fuselage). There's a SAAB video online, with a SAAB bloke walking round the aircraft talking & pointing

While not having all the sensors, the hardpoints, or all the other equipment of the Swordfish MPA, the flying Globaleye thus does have, as you say, about 50% of the sensors. The same airframe with the same combat system & about half the sensors, flying & undergoing tests, is a huge step up from a paper aeroplane. The commonality is undoubtedly deliberate, to reduce development effort, time & cost. Thus, while the currently flying Globaleye isn't a full prototype of the Swordfish, it is a partial prototype - & was planned as such. It is thus not correct that "the Saab/Bombardier Swordfish/Global 6000 MPA ... only exists as a 'paper aeroplane' with no physical prototypes currently planned, never mind in production, testing or flight". There's a partial one flying & being tested.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
The Globaleye aircraft shown to the press in February, complete with UAEAF markings, was explicitly stated by SAAB to have both an electro-optical sensor (camera lingers on it) & surface search radar (camera focuses on radome below fuselage). There's a SAAB video online, with a SAAB bloke walking round the aircraft talking & pointing

While not having all the sensors, the hardpoints, or all the other equipment of the Swordfish MPA, the flying Globaleye thus does have, as you say, about 50% of the sensors. The same airframe with the same combat system & about half the sensors, flying & undergoing tests, is a huge step up from a paper aeroplane. The commonality is undoubtedly deliberate, to reduce development effort, time & cost. Thus, while the currently flying Globaleye isn't a full prototype of the Swordfish, it is a partial prototype - & was planned as such. It is thus not correct that "the Saab/Bombardier Swordfish/Global 6000 MPA ... only exists as a 'paper aeroplane' with no physical prototypes currently planned, never mind in production, testing or flight". There's a partial one flying & being tested.
AFAIK Saab lacks corporate knowledge in fitting and integrating sub-hunting kit like MAD, acoustic processors and sonobuoy systems aboard aircraft, and these are the systems which are to be aboard the Swordfish, but not the GlobalEye. Potential issues which come to mind which would likely take a flying prototype to discover and then sort out are things like whether the planned/designed sonobuoy dropping system is able to safely and accurately release the sonobuoys when and where needed, without causing damage to either the aircraft or sonobuoy? Another would be whether other elements which relate to the sonobuoys, namely the acoustic processor, antenna(s) receiving signals from the sonobuoys and the workstation(s) controlling the sonobuoy network(s) are not both sited, connected and shielded correctly, then splatter and other spurious transmissions can interfere with operations potentially causing false positive contacts, and/or causing 'real' contacts to be overlooked or ignored. The MAD boom is in a similar sort of situation.

Also, since AFAIK no gov't has gone to Saab with a request for Saab to develop an MPA capable of ASW operations, the as-yet unspecified systems like the acoustic processor and MAD are either what Saab thinks would be appropriate, or Saab has not actually at this point selected specific models for these systems. Now I am sure that Saab could recruit personnel that have experience flying, operating, maintaining and designing MPA and ASW aircraft, if it has not already done so, to provide some of that corporate knowledge. Having said that though, the lack of direction from a gov't with experience in ASW operations in terms of types of ASW capabilities to include in a design, the lack of prior experience designing an aircraft suitable for ASW operations, and the lack of actual, flying Swordfish/Global 6000 prototype to test the effectiveness of the mission systems and how well they are integrated all lead me to (still) call it a paper aeroplane. Testing an aircraft with a significantly different sensor fitout and systems integration would not provide the manufacturer or potential customers confirmation that the proposed Swordfish MPA configuration would perform as desired or required. As it is, I will be quite interested to find out whether or not Saab encounters problems with the power requirements and/or signal interference between the Erieye ER S-band and Seaspray 7500E X-band AESA radars now that an example of the GlobalEye is flying. IIRC problems with power requirements and interference between the ground and aerial surveillance radars were part of the reason why the USAF ended up cancelling the E-10A MC2 program back in 2007.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
"the lack of direction from a gov't with experience in ASW operations"
I wish you'd stop doing this. You're putting forward solid arguments then you throw in something like this. Sweden had a gap in airborne ASW capability after retiring its ASW helicopters in 2008 (replacement began in 2015 with the delivery of the first of nine new ASW helicopters), but it has plenty of experience in ASW operations, & in unusually difficult conditions.

SAAB knows what an ASW aircraft has to counter. It's developed & sold ASW simulators, e.g. the AUV62-AT target/training aid has been bought by to various customers (no names except the Swedish navy disclosed AFAIK). The US navy is evaluating it this year. I'd like to know what they think of it. Swedish navy submarine crews seem competent. I wonder how they learned to evade ASW measures, if Sweden has no experience in them.

And -
"the as-yet unspecified systems like the acoustic processor and MAD are either what Saab thinks would be appropriate, or Saab has not actually at this point selected specific models for these systems"
They're not "as-yet unspecified". SAAB announced them long ago. General Dynamics Mission Systems Canada acoustics processor, & CAE MAD-XR.

Please note that I'm not arguing that the Swordfish would be worth buying, & certainly not that it'd be equal to the P-8. I'm just trying to correct what I see as errors & omissions. You seem so keen to rubbish it that you're making criticisms from ignorance, although they're easily checkable.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
"the lack of direction from a gov't with experience in ASW operations"
I wish you'd stop doing this. You're putting forward solid arguments then you throw in something like this. Sweden had a gap in airborne ASW capability after retiring its ASW helicopters in 2008 (replacement began in 2015 with the delivery of the first of nine new ASW helicopters), but it has plenty of experience in ASW operations, & in unusually difficult conditions.

SAAB knows what an ASW aircraft has to counter. It's developed & sold ASW simulators, e.g. the AUV62-AT target/training aid has been bought by to various customers (no names except the Swedish navy disclosed AFAIK). The US navy is evaluating it this year. I'd like to know what they think of it. Swedish navy submarine crews seem competent. I wonder how they learned to evade ASW measures, if Sweden has no experience in them.

And -
"the as-yet unspecified systems like the acoustic processor and MAD are either what Saab thinks would be appropriate, or Saab has not actually at this point selected specific models for these systems"
They're not "as-yet unspecified". SAAB announced them long ago. General Dynamics Mission Systems Canada acoustics processor, & CAE MAD-XR.

Please note that I'm not arguing that the Swordfish would be worth buying, & certainly not that it'd be equal to the P-8. I'm just trying to correct what I see as errors & omissions. You seem so keen to rubbish it that you're making criticisms from ignorance, although they're easily checkable.
Looking through things, I am surprised that I missed the NH90 order for Sweden in an ASW configuration. Similarly, the information that the Swordfish is planned to fit a GDMS-Canada processor (presumable the UYS-505) was not listed in either Saab's Swordfish datasheet, or the four saab.com pages on the Swordfish, but I did find the information later on the saabgroup.com page on the Swordfish, mea culpa...

The "lack of direction from a gov't" comment was more directed at the potential for a country like the UAE opting to augment or replace their two Bombardier Dash-8 MPA configured aircraft with Swordfish, since Saab is claiming there will be a 70% commonality between the GlobalEye and Swordfish/Global 6000. From my perspective, the operation of a pair of Dash-8 MPA is not going to provide great deal of useful expertise in developing a newer and more capable MPA. At the same time, Saab also does not seem to have the ability to go to the Swedish Armed Forces to get input which would be useful in developing a fixed-wing MPA/ASW aircraft, as it seems the Swedish Armed Forces have not operated such an aircraft since 2005.

Lastly, I have not actually set out to rubbish the Swordfish/Global 6000 concept although I do believe that some of the claims and assertions in terms of capabilities and costs would be found inaccurate if the aircraft does end up getting produced. Rather, several defence/aerospace companies have announced concept aircraft for maritime patrol/surveillance roles within the last decade which have not come to fruition. Given that some of these concept aircraft announcements have come from industry leaders with a wealth of both resources and experience to draw upon to develop maritime patrol aircraft, that strongly suggests to me that significant challenges exist in developing an MPA or ASW aircraft with a useful capability, even if/when using a similar or existing aircraft as a base. After all, look at what progress has been made with either the Boeing Maritime Surveillance Aircraft, which was to be based on a Bombardier Challenger 605 business jet aircraft, or Lockheed Martin's concept SC-130J Sea Herc, which IIRC had been proposed as a solution for the UK's MPA programme requirement now filled by the P-8A Poseidon.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #159
Todj, LM mustn't have a lot of faith in the Sea Herc concept if they aren't willing to commit funds to a demonstrator aircraft. If they had done that, they might have actually obtained some orders. I don't think Boeing's MSA concept was really going to fly because IIRC it wasn't weapons capable. I could be mistooken there.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Todj, LM mustn't have a lot of faith in the Sea Herc concept if they aren't willing to commit funds to a demonstrator aircraft. If they had done that, they might have actually obtained some orders. I don't think Boeing's MSA concept was really going to fly because IIRC it wasn't weapons capable. I could be mistooken there.
I have a somewhat different take on why LockMart has not (yet, at least) put more resources into developing the SC-130J.

For starters, US defence companies tend not to put resources into developing new/significantly different variants of defence kit unless they are receiving gov't funding for the development. After all, why spend the company's money speculating when the gov't might not have a need for whatever the company would be developing.

To use the SC-130J concept as an example, I could easily see it costing LockMart USD$100+ mil. just in material costs, parts and installation, never mind the payroll costs for the workers. After all, the USAF flyaway price for a C-130J is about USD$70 mil. IIRC and then the aircraft would need appropriate sensors, mission systems, wiring to connect everything and holes cut and kit installed.

USD$100 mil. is quite a bit for a company to expend, when no gov't has publicly expressed interest in the concept. When one adds to that the fact that the two largest MPA operators already have their own programmes running which are in the process of replacing their MPA fleets.

I suspect that LockMart has made the decision that the cost to develop was too high given the likely demand for MPA orders, and the fact that the concept (if finisihed) would face competition from high end MPA like the P-8A or P-1.

Now the situation could very well be different for LockMart if someone were to dust off the concepts around 2028 or so, since the Poseidon and other MPA would likely be out of production.
 
Top