What's new

Pakistan Navy Invites Bids to Procure an ATR 72-500 Aircraft

syed_yusuf

FULL MEMBER
Mar 20, 2006
1,427
0
940
there were few fokkers used 4 transport and not updated with all gizmos needed for other role
With changing threat perception and impact to Pakistan I believe PN should consider upgrading all 7-8 atr72 planned. Number 7-8 is assumed there is not fact behind this number
 

Shabi1

FULL MEMBER
Apr 17, 2006
1,922
6
2,833
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
With changing threat perception and impact to Pakistan I believe PN should consider upgrading all 7-8 atr72 planned. Number 7-8 is assumed there is not fact behind this number
Some of the surveillance role is going to be transferred to UAVs. Don't need all ATRs converted for increased coverage since we are also developing Sea Sultans along with drone fleet. Even US plans similar approach, P-3C has MAD (magnetic anomaly detector) boom in tail the P-8 doesnt. Flying low to use the MAD causes stress on the airframe because of turbulence as well as takes a toll on the crew. Which is why US plans a P-8+Drone combo with their drones still in R&D phase.
Turkish ATRs have MAD booms but PN ASW ATRs don't, its a capability we have on the P-3Cs but didnt include in our ATR ASW conversions suggesting PN looking might be looking into transferring this role to drones as well.
 
Last edited:

khanasifm

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 16, 2008
7,027
6
5,599
Some of the surveillance role is going to be transferred to UAVs. Don't need all ATRs converted for increased coverage since we are also developing Sea Sultans along with drone fleet. Even US plans similar approach, P-3C has MAD (magnetic anomaly detector) boom in tail the P-8 doesnt. Flying low to use the MAD causes stress on the airframe because of turbulence as well as takes a toll on the crew. Which is why US plans a P-8+Drone combo with their drones still in R&D phase.
Turkish ATRs have MAD booms but PN ASW ATRs don't, its a capability we have on the P-3Cs but didnt include in our ATR ASW conversions suggesting PN looking might be looking into transferring this role to drones as well.
There was a good Article in Afm about p8 it’s a different approach to asw vs past ie mediem/high level flight and more area coverage vs older philosophy of low level and smaller area search some folks are of the view that medium level profile of p8 is not practicle and would lead to missing targets or Even engaging via Torpedoes

anyway US Navy is the leader and has introduced medium level flight profile with lager area coverage supported by the gizmos on p8 they even do not have MAD on p8
 

Shabi1

FULL MEMBER
Apr 17, 2006
1,922
6
2,833
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
There was a good Article in Afm about p8 it’s a different approach to asw vs past ie mediem/high level flight and more area coverage vs older philosophy of low level and smaller area search some folks are of the view that medium level profile of p8 is not practicle and would lead to missing targets or Even engaging via Torpedoes

anyway US Navy is the leader and has introduced medium level flight profile with lager area coverage supported by the gizmos on p8 they even do not have MAD on p8
Jets like the B737 are not supposed to fly low, hence the elimination of MAD which the US intends to field on a drone linked with P-8s.
 

nahtanbob

ELITE MEMBER
Sep 24, 2018
8,566
-41
2,797
Country
United States
Location
United States
There was a good Article in Afm about p8 it’s a different approach to asw vs past ie mediem/high level flight and more area coverage vs older philosophy of low level and smaller area search some folks are of the view that medium level profile of p8 is not practicle and would lead to missing targets or Even engaging via Torpedoes

anyway US Navy is the leader and has introduced medium level flight profile with lager area coverage supported by the gizmos on p8 they even do not have MAD on p8
MADs are for low flying aircraft. The P-8I is not meant to be low flying
 

kursed

FULL MEMBER
Mar 21, 2007
1,069
11
2,953
There was a good Article in Afm about p8 it’s a different approach to asw vs past ie mediem/high level flight and more area coverage vs older philosophy of low level and smaller area search some folks are of the view that medium level profile of p8 is not practicle and would lead to missing targets or Even engaging via Torpedoes

anyway US Navy is the leader and has introduced medium level flight profile with lager area coverage supported by the gizmos on p8 they even do not have MAD on p8
P8 will carry out MAD missions using a deployable UAS with MAD on it, spreading multiple such systems across a wide area - allowing P8 to act like a kill solution carrier while the UAS track / trace the enemy sub.

It’s an entirely different philosophy at play here, has no bearing on lack of MAD on P8 itself.
 

Akh1112

FULL MEMBER
Nov 21, 2019
1,304
5
2,131
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
MADs are for low flying aircraft. The P-8I is not meant to be low flying
thats not true, MAD runs are done at low altitude but that doesnt mean booms are only present on low flying altitude. MAD booms were deleted on the P8 because their usefulness is questionable vs the airframe stress, increased weight and processing systems+stations vs something like more sonobouys. They were re added for the Indian Navy but again, as i said, their usefulness is questionable.
 

khanasifm

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 16, 2008
7,027
6
5,599
Well some customer of p8 did add MAD on their order like IN anyway the major factor is low level asw with smaller coverage area but benefit of better detection and engagement vs medium /high level coverage but dropping torpeadows from medium /high level is like finding needle is hay stack per the Afm article so p8 may have something to address this ?? Who knows



 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom