P-1's radars are AESA radars similar to that fitted on Aegis destroyer and fighter aircraft. Paired with combination of air-air missile or air-ship missile, it has the potential to decimate any surface fleet and hostile aircraft beyond visual range. Not to be underestimated as mere a maritime patrol aircraft.
The order is challengeable but at least it gives a good picture of what is out there for the MPA mission. I think that CN-235 is behind C-295 MPA by far now. I worked on this program with EADS/CASA the OEM that is now focusing on the C-295 aircraft. One key question is that if you had to acquire MPA capacity which one will you buy?
@@doggovision5817 Nope, the P-8 is bad at maneuvering, target tracking, armament range, it has the acceleration of a 737, and most importantly, it has half the range of the P-3
mr Tack If my English is weird, please complain to Google. If the development of the drone goes wrong, or if it is delayed considerably, it may be a military mistake, but if it fits well, the P-8 is a different dimension of patrol control than the P-3. I think it will be an opportunity. If it's a P-3, I think the Kawasaki P-1 is a better aircraft.
This more effective than carriers because response time and capacity can deliver LSRAM up to 200 miles acurate range eliminate all sea threat or land force without being threaten by AA because no AA can get beyond 20 miles
Would an Osprey have any advantage as a search and rescue aircraft? It could get to a wreck faster than a helicopter, and then remain stationary as rescue divers worked to save a crew.
The P3 Orion is nearly obsolete and being currently replaced by the P-8 Poseidon, which has the latest avionics and technology installed. The P-1 rivals nearly equal to the P-8, with different tactics designed in mind, which makes it hard to actually compare which is better or not. It uses 4 instead of two engines, which makes it safer to operate in the large bodies of sea without worries of needing to return to base if an engine is malfunctioning, unlike the P-8, which would need to due to the fact it only has two engines. Also, the P-8 is designed for high altitude and speed, while the P-1 is designed for both high and low altitude operations with slower stall speeds, but preferably slower speeds. The technology is also very different, making it harder to compare. One of the benefits of the P-8 is an abundance of spare parts if needed for repairs, due to being designed on a commercial airliner. The P-1 however is built specifically for military use, making spare parts harder to find for repairs.
Having 4 engines causing more disruption with sensors for detection from what UK trial found out thus UK went with more expensive P8. P1 also made an error with claim that S Korean destroyers used targeting radar on them when they were using detection radar to rescue N Korean fisherman.
@@anonymouswizard5535 replacement is a fact of age not quality of performance; if it were possible to have kept the old Canadian Argus flying then they would never have been replaced, just upgraded ;but airframes have limited time
Olá sou brasileiro, e boa parte dos aviões militares fabricados aqui são da EMBRAER como este referido no vídeo e o A29 super tucano, boa tarde (Aqui no Brasil já é de tarde)
Because of the things the others can't do.....like fly at 30 feet with saltwater splash hitting their intakes.... Amongst it's other strengths in comparison to the other platforms.
Wheres the CP 140 Aurora? This Canadian plane has a 9000 km range and is basically an Orion with the Vikings avionics. Canada has the longest coastline in the world and this plane has been our workhorse for decades.
I was waiting for the Tu-95RT The AN-72 it's called Cheburashka by the Russians because their engines and air intake ducts are located near to the fuselage of the aircraft, looking similar to the animated teddy bear. I watched that as a kid :") Our face reveal is close 😉
No exactly. The airframe is French, but in the case of the ATR72 MP, Leoanardo in Italy is the prime and ATR is simply a sub that provides airframes. The airframe is built in France but then converted to the MP configuration in Italy.
yes but nope airframe is built in Italy and wings in France so is from both country btw this is a weapon system, so if the italian Leonardo bought the aircraft and mod it with eletronic system and weapon is an italian one, just like israel AEW&CS is the system applied on different type of airframe from different nations, so... stupid comment for stupid nation pride
fabio tra well you do not understand it is just to be fair for example the Rafale is French because totally made in France but the typhoon is not Italian because only a few parts are made in Italy. Another example a song doesn’t belong to the music writer only, it is the result of a team. So the ATR is the result of a team work
Because the P-3 is better. Say what you want about its age, but it's way ahead of its time. On the other hand the P-8 is slow and it isn't as maneuverable as the P-3
You see with the aircrafts and all the machines buzzing hums it's not so bad to know avg for a type stat operational flown or worked charts by hours daily or yearly. With the flying cylinders, sausages and or cigars as well as with all UFO and aircrafts those parametres depend crucially on the engines, fuel types, territories, environment, and the companies of men and women they are being operated in and by. What concerns com, fuel and currencies consumption characteristics you might have been supposedly fully updated on the matter already. Com as you may probably know is an army word for commerce in some english like speaking vocabularies.
None of the An aircraft (inc An74) are Ukrainian. They are soviet and were just assembled in Kharkov. Ukraine is not able to produce any air-craft as most parts are produced in Russia
@@tack9571 In what way? The P-8 gets on station faster, has more time on station, is much more comfortable for the crew, has aerial refueling, has a much better radar, doesn't need as many crew, and is much more upgradable.
@@pahtar7189 The P-3 is a proven design, it can perform evasive maneuvers fast, some variants have aerial refueling, strong airframe, superior handling (it's easier to fly) more customizable, it can also be used as an air tanker, a land surveillance aircraft, AWACS aircraft and many more. It can also carry various different weapons like air to surface missiles, some have air to air missiles (idk why) and it can be fitted with modernized RADAR systems that are superior to the P-8, oh and it also has over twice the range (which is really important)
Lol the replies to this comment seem to be from individuals who have never flown in any of these aircraft yet are extremely convinced they are right. At least the American version of the p-8 blows the American version of the P-3 out of the water in nearly every way.
@@tack9571 Where you get the range number? Because the wiki, which draws from the official unclassified numbers shows the p-8 to have a slightly higher combat range.
BREGUET ATLANTIC???!!! It should rank at least number four: Combat proven and not only above the seas but in Afghanistan, Irak, Africa, as we speak there are Atlantics performing bombing missions using Paveway GBL all the while performing ELINT and command center. None of the aircraft you have mentionned do that.
@the buzz I'm from Bangalore......I know that you are from shillong....anyways nice video......I was interested in your videos since you were showing defense videos......I myself have worked my fare share in aeronautical industry ........nice work keep it up
The P1 was specially manufactured domestically for China, the aircraft was Kawasaki Heavy Industries, the engine was IHI, partner companies Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Fuji Heavy Industries, Japan Aircraft, etc.... The jet engine IHI developed in 1945, Kawasaki Heavy Industries and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. , Is a combination of Fuji Heavy Industries (Zero Fight), this is invincible.
