Pakistan Navy seeking new jet power maritime patrol aircraft MPA

[FuturePAF]

How about the Swordfish Suite on the Airbus A220; it is actually a bombardier platform.
It is only slightly more expensive, but will offer longer range and more room for sensor, while being smaller then the P-8 Poseidon. Yes it would require a new feasibility study, over the current Swordfish platform, but its worth a look.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220

 

[war&peace]

Does jet allow any significant advantage over turboprop besides speed? Otherwise Y8 can be considered.

Perhaps the noise profile. Turbofans are quieter than the turboprops though turboprop has higher efficiency at lower altitudes especially in take off and ascent phases.. but turbofan is more efficient at higher altitudes than turboprop in fact, the latter cannot fly beyond certain altitude while the turbofan can fly much higher but I'm not sure how this is beneficial in MPA other than lower noise and faster speed.

The Swordfish is a COTS-driven solution. The radar, EO/IR and MAD are all from third-party sources (with whom Pakistan is already dealing with via the ATR-72 MPA). The aircraft is from Canada's Bombardier. Basically, the only things Saab can withhold are its CMS, AShM and ASW torpedoes (all of which can be replaced). Anyways, Saab has been a willing supplier in some areas (e.g. Erieye AEW&C), so its willingness is not the issue.

Of the options available, the Bombardier Global 6000-based Swordfish is the only jet-powered MPA solution which has undergone studies, design, integration, etc and is ready to be implemented. Others, such as the A319 solution, are conceptual right now and will likely end-up costing as much as the P-8 Poseidon.

In 2017 Saab said the Swordfish has 2/3 the upfront cost of the P-8A and 1/2 the lifecycle support costs. Based on South Korea's P-8A deal, that would make each Swordfish ~$90 m to procure and $110 m to maintain it over the long-run. So $200 m ea. (all-in) vs. the P-8A's $350 m.

Excellent post. Now what about performance comparison between the two?

 

[RIP Pak LAW]

anything from Sweden is cool. I remember when I saw SAAB erieye for Pakistan in Linkoping. Met Captain Kashif of PAF there. He was there with his team for training purpose in 2010. We even played a cricket match against those folks.

 

[monitor]

Where it stands compared to latest P-3 and P-8s??

P-8 have more cruise speed compare to P-3 and have better avionics to support 21st century asw compare to 50 era P-3 .

• Combat radius: 1,200 nmi (2,222 km) ; 4 hours on station (for anti-submarine warfare mission)[178]
• Ferry range: 4,500 nautical miles (8,300 km[179])
• Service ceiling: 41,000 ft (12,496 m)

Armament

• 5 internal and 6 external stations for AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER, AGM-84 Harpoon, Mark 54 torpedo, missiles, mines, torpedoes, bombs, and a High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon system

P-3

• Cruise speed: 328 kn[1] (610 km/h)
• Range: 2,380 nmi radius[1] (4,400 km)
• Combat radius: 1,346 nmi[1] (2,490 km) three hours on-station at 1,500 feet
• Ferry range: 4,830 nmi[93] (8,944 km)
• Endurance: 16 hours[93]
• Service ceiling: 28,300 ft[1] (8,625 m)
• Rate of climb: 3,140 ft/min (16 m/s)
• Wing loading: 107 lb/ft² (530 kg/m²)
• Power/mass: 0.136 hp/lb at max gross (0.23 kW/kg)

Armament

• Guns: None
• Hardpoints: 10 wing stations in total (3x on each wing and 2x on each wing root) and eight internal bomb bay stations with a capacity of 20,000 lb (9,100 kg)[1] and provisions to carry combinations of:

 

[Quwa]

Perhaps the noise profile. Turbofans are quieter than the turboprops though turboprop has higher efficiency at lower altitudes especially in take off and ascent phases.. but turbofan is more efficient at higher altitudes than turboprop in fact, the latter cannot fly beyond certain altitude while the turbofan can fly much higher but I'm not sure how this is beneficial in MPA other than lower noise and faster speed.


Excellent post. Now what about performance comparison between the two?

The Global 6000-based Swordfish has much less payload (e.g. the P-8 has more external hardpoints and an internal bomb bay), but the Swordfish can stay on station for a longer period of time.

 

[war&peace]

The Global 6000-based Swordfish has much less payload (e.g. the P-8 has more external hardpoints and an internal bomb bay), but the Swordfish can stay on station for a longer period of time.

So can it be paired with a couple of Su35s flying with torpedos or JF17s with CM400..

 

[denel]

why jets? P3 should be more than sufficient and provide good range with the turboprops. What are the requirements?

 

[Imran Khan]

P-8 have more cruise speed compare to P-3 and have better avionics to support 21st century asw compare to 50 era P-3 .

• Combat radius: 1,200 nmi (2,222 km) ; 4 hours on station (for anti-submarine warfare mission)[178]
• Ferry range: 4,500 nautical miles (8,300 km[179])
• Service ceiling: 41,000 ft (12,496 m)

Armament

• 5 internal and 6 external stations for AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER, AGM-84 Harpoon, Mark 54 torpedo, missiles, mines, torpedoes, bombs, and a High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon system

P-3

• Cruise speed: 328 kn[1] (610 km/h)
• Range: 2,380 nmi radius[1] (4,400 km)
• Combat radius: 1,346 nmi[1] (2,490 km) three hours on-station at 1,500 feet
• Ferry range: 4,830 nmi[93] (8,944 km)
• Endurance: 16 hours[93]
• Service ceiling: 28,300 ft[1] (8,625 m)
• Rate of climb: 3,140 ft/min (16 m/s)
• Wing loading: 107 lb/ft² (530 kg/m²)
• Power/mass: 0.136 hp/lb at max gross (0.23 kW/kg)

Armament

• Guns: None
• Hardpoints: 10 wing stations in total (3x on each wing and 2x on each wing root) and eight internal bomb bay stations with a capacity of 20,000 lb (9,100 kg)[1] and provisions to carry combinations of:

but you have to lick US balls for next 30-40 years no thanks

The Global 6000-based Swordfish has much less payload (e.g. the P-8 has more external hardpoints and an internal bomb bay), but the Swordfish can stay on station for a longer period of time.

but it offered freedom of USA which is priceless buy 1-2 extra but stay away from those white house idiots

 

[monitor]

but you have to lick US balls for next 30-40 years no thanks


but it offered freedom of USA which is priceless buy 1-2 extra but stay away from those white house idiots

True US option is risky. Long term vision should get indigenous solution by outsourcing sub system from reliable source. Brazil have some kc-390 could be a platform for future MPA. Chinese C-969 can be a option when it mature. Interim solution is Saab sword fish as PN already familiar with saab.

 

[Basel]

P-8 have more cruise speed compare to P-3 and have better avionics to support 21st century asw compare to 50 era P-3 .

• Combat radius: 1,200 nmi (2,222 km) ; 4 hours on station (for anti-submarine warfare mission)[178]
• Ferry range: 4,500 nautical miles (8,300 km[179])
• Service ceiling: 41,000 ft (12,496 m)

Armament

• 5 internal and 6 external stations for AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER, AGM-84 Harpoon, Mark 54 torpedo, missiles, mines, torpedoes, bombs, and a High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon system

P-3

• Cruise speed: 328 kn[1] (610 km/h)
• Range: 2,380 nmi radius[1] (4,400 km)
• Combat radius: 1,346 nmi[1] (2,490 km) three hours on-station at 1,500 feet
• Ferry range: 4,830 nmi[93] (8,944 km)
• Endurance: 16 hours[93]
• Service ceiling: 28,300 ft[1] (8,625 m)
• Rate of climb: 3,140 ft/min (16 m/s)
• Wing loading: 107 lb/ft² (530 kg/m²)
• Power/mass: 0.136 hp/lb at max gross (0.23 kW/kg)

Armament

• Guns: None
• Hardpoints: 10 wing stations in total (3x on each wing and 2x on each wing root) and eight internal bomb bay stations with a capacity of 20,000 lb (9,100 kg)[1] and provisions to carry combinations of:

I didn't ask that comparison, I asked about there comparison with Swordfish MPA.

 

[Quwa]

So can it be paired with a couple of Su35s flying with torpedos or JF17s with CM400..

You can data-link the Swordfish to those assets too. Saab's willing to work with any data-link protocol as long as the sensor provider (Leonardo) allows it.

 

[war&peace]

You can data-link the Swordfish to those assets too. Saab's willing to work with any data-link protocol as long as the sensor provider (Leonardo) allows it.

For future, I personally think that Pakistan, China and/or Turkey should start working on a JV project to develop a next gen MS&PA that caters to their particular needs. Under the project, many different sub-projects can run in parallel to develop radars, sonars, magnetic tail, weapons, airframe.. Everything does not need to be developed from scratch..rather many systems like airframe can be adopted from a baseline like C919 or An-225 with modern avionics etc. China is already deploying beidou navigation system and has many spy and communication satellites and similarly Pakistan can also develop its own satellites that provide high resolution coverage over our areas of interest.

 

[FuturePAF]

The Global 6000-based Swordfish has much less payload (e.g. the P-8 has more external hardpoints and an internal bomb bay), but the Swordfish can stay on station for a longer period of time.

Any word on the Mission Profile for the Turbofan powered MPAs? It would make it a lot easier to know how much of a payload is needed. Patrolling the Pakistani EEZ out to its limits would be difficult even with the Global 6000-based Swordfish. Pakistan should look into acquire elements of the Chinese SOSUS equivalent, for deployment in its EEZ, to better guide any new MPA and maximize their utility.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...rwater-listening-devices-within-range-of-guam

 

[Rashid Mahmood]

P-8 is not being considered.
The Swordfish can be a good contender or the Falcon 2000 MRA. (PAF operate the Falcon 20)


Note: There are only 2 aircraft which was designed as an MPAs from the design board, first was the Breguet Atlantic LRMP and second the Kawasaki P-1. All other MPAs are modifications from other either transport or passenger aircraft fuselage.

 

[Super Falcon]

given the situation airbus A 319 offer is bettr than Saab but both are very fesible but i prefer A 319 it gives the long range Survileance to our naval need remember we had lost alot from india in sea we need better or even beter thab poisdeon of india to give answer ti indian navy next time in war