New Navy P-8A

gkainz

gkainz

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
8,401
Location
Arvada, CO
Display Name
Display name:
Greg Kainz
from an email this morning - the Navy P-8A, which will be the replacement aircraft for the Navy P-3
 

Attachments

  • _JRA1920.jpg
    _JRA1920.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 75
  • _JRA1936.jpg
    _JRA1936.jpg
    861.6 KB · Views: 73
  • _JRA1938.jpg
    _JRA1938.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 83
dmccormack said:
Cool.

Why a Turbine over Turbo-prop?
Click to expand...

My initial thoughts... (just guesses)

+ Fly higher if you need
+ Fly longer if you need
+ Carry more
+ Standards-based product enabling you to easily add/remove/order more

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
You know, I looked at the tug pulling the plane, and see that it's full of scratches where it's brushed against things. I then think to myself, do I really want someone who can't keep from hitting something in a tug pulling my plane? :dunno:
 
It looks like they took a 737 and put Dreamliner wings on it. I'm guessing it's a Boeing product?
 
Cap'n Jack said:
It looks like they took a 737 and put Dreamliner wings on it. I'm guessing it's a Boeing product?
Click to expand...
That would be a "yes"!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-8_Poseidon said:
The Boeing P-8 Poseidon (formerly the Multimission Maritime Aircraft or MMA) is a military aircraft currently being developed for the United States Navy. It is intended to conduct anti-submarine warfare, shipping interdiction, and to engage in an electronic intelligence (ELINT) role. This will involve carrying torpedoes, depth charges, Harpoon anti-shipping missiles, and other weapons. It will also be able to drop and monitor sonobuoys. It is designed to operate in conjunction with the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance unmanned aerial vehicle. The P-8 is to be built by Boeing's Integrated Defense Systems division from the 737-800.
Click to expand...
 
astanley said:
My initial thoughts... (just guesses)

+ Fly higher if you need
+ Fly longer if you need
+ Carry more
+ Standards-based product enabling you to easily add/remove/order more

Cheers,

-Andrew
Click to expand...

Hmmm..

Turbines have advantages for some missions, but the P-3 mission is extended missions at low altitudes where sonobouy employment and listening is done.

Unless this particular turbofan is more efficient than a turboprop?

Any P-3 crew on the board?
 
P8 is a budget compromise. Nobody makes a heavy twin engine (or four engined) turboprop these days except the Russians- and that's the BEAR bomber.

The 737-800 is distinctly short on duration of flight compared with P3. Oh well, like Rumsfeld said, "sometimes you have to go with what you've got".......
 
Dr. Bruce- how about the C-130? Or is that not considered "heavy"? I've not seen the two planes side-by-side but a C-130 looks large to me...don't know about the range either...just asking...
 
I was cleared to fly the Renton downwind northbound Saturday morning, Monitoring the tower freq we heard a request from a " Boeing Jet" to back taxi while awaiting chase planes to arrive from Boeing. I later found out it was the test flight. DaveR
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Dr. Bruce- how about the C-130? Or is that not considered "heavy"? I've not seen the two planes side-by-side but a C-130 looks large to me...don't know about the range either...just asking...
Click to expand...
I know that when Navy tried to vector us into a C-130 at 1600' off Key West, despite our saying we had it in sight, it sure looked large!
 
The P-8 ia a version of the 737, it was not designed to do what the P-3 does, simply because the mission has changed.. sats do the sub tracking now and the P-3 up grades are too expensive to do to old cracked winged P-3s which are approaching 100,000 cycles.
 
bbchien said:
P8 is a budget compromise. Nobody makes a heavy twin engine (or four engined) turboprop these days except the Russians- and that's the BEAR bomber.

The 737-800 is distinctly short on duration of flight compared with P3. Oh well, like Rumsfeld said, "sometimes you have to go with what you've got".......
Click to expand...

Doc, you missed the E2D, AE 2100 running Dowdy Rotal septar props producing 11,000 horses a side..
 
Tom-D said:
Because we don't need to go low and slow any more.
Click to expand...
Something I've wondered about recently while flying a glass plane with a magnetometer is how low the Viking had to fly to make use of the MAD boom. How low did the Orion have to fly?
 
KennyFlys said:
Something I've wondered about recently while flying a glass plane with a magnetometer is how low the Viking had to fly to make use of the MAD boom. How low did the Orion have to fly?
Click to expand...

Most of the sono bouy patterns were flown at 1000' the mad boom was useless above 2500'..

keep in mind I never flew a mission in a P-3, I was just a engine NATOPs Instructor, and long out of the loop now.

But I drink beer at the CPO Club with thoes who do.
 
Tom-D said:
The P-8 ia a version of the 737, it was not designed to do what the P-3 does, simply because the mission has changed.. sats do the sub tracking now...
Click to expand...

Not really.

Sonobouy signals are picked up by LAMPS SH60 helicopter or P-3 and relayed to the surface ship. Acoustic analysis is done aboard the ship.

There is SOSUS for long range and pattern detection, but the localization, identification, tracking, and prosecuting is done by the battlegroup.
 
dmccormack said:
Not really.

Sonobouy signals are picked up by LAMPS SH60 helicopter or P-3 and relayed to the surface ship. Acoustic analysis is done aboard the ship.

There is SOSUS for long range and pattern detection, but the localization, identification, tracking, and prosecuting is done by the battlegroup.
Click to expand...
That seems to defeat the purpose of the computer onboard the Viking that could identify as well as the weapons onboard that could disable a sub threat.
 
astanley said:
My initial thoughts... (just guesses)

1) Fly higher if you need
2) Fly longer if you need
3) Carry more
4) Standards-based product enabling you to easily add/remove/order more

Cheers,

-Andrew
Click to expand...

1) Not the P3 mission profile
2) Seriously doubt that...
3)Very Likely
4) BINGO!!!
 
I read in thw Wiki article cited earlier (thanks!) mentioned that they will be using UAVs with this plane.

Wouldn't the UAVs then do the low flying (the P-3 profile) while the "mother ship" stays up high? With UAVs, I'd imagine that then can cycle the P-8 while the drones do the extended mission. Different mission? Use a different UAV.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/p8a/docs/P-8A_overview.pdf
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/p8a/index.html

Just a quick look through these don't seem to mention the UAV (although I probably missed it) but they do mention the advantages mentioned by Andrew about leveraging an existing airframe.

Google is my friend!
 
I was wondering about MAD too. Is that technology no longer in use? It was hard to tell from the pix, they might have a MAD boom that extends from that bulbous fairing above the tailboom, but you sure won't have loiter capability flying a 737 at 1500ft.
 
flyersfan31 said:
I was wondering about MAD too. Is that technology no longer in use? It was hard to tell from the pix, they might have a MAD boom that extends from that bulbous fairing above the tailboom, but you sure won't have loiter capability flying a 737 at 1500ft.
Click to expand...

Thing is, we have water penetrating radar equipped satellites, and they can probably do the job. Our intelligence is going to a satellite based format same as our navigation and communications. MAD booms are probably viewed by the brain trust same as ADFs are viewed by GA.

Plus MAD grid runs offshore have Autonomous UAV written all over them.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Just a quick look through these don't seem to mention the UAV (although I probably missed it) but they do mention the advantages mentioned by Andrew about leveraging an existing airframe.
Click to expand...

There's a trend all across the industrial world now -- leveraging "consumer" to fit "enterprise" applications. While it would be a stretch (this trend is usually applied to IT and other corporate functions) to say that this is a primary driver, it certainly is there.

The upshot of going full custom was you got exactly what you wanted. But, then again, you had a development pipeline that was huge (or, would be huge by today's standards: see the F22) and this pile of capital investment that was only as good as the core product was good (see the C141). With the 737, the core product is going to be around for a while (I think), and you've had multiple generations in the consumer-industrial market to really work a great deal of the kinks out. Existing supply chains for most of the major parts, ability to source maintenance outside of the services (if required), and far lower unit costs than a greenfield design. Based on my rough calculation, each P-8 is about $140MM. I wonder what capital the Navy had to front (I saw a reference on Wikipedia that the P-7 program ran over by $300MM and only delivered 2 prototype airplanes).

The UAV bit is really interesting. It's almost as if this is Navy's version of AWACS.

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
bbchien said:
The 737-800 is distinctly short on duration of flight compared with P3. Oh well, like Rumsfeld said, "sometimes you have to go with what you've got".......
Click to expand...

Bruce, the Wiki article says it has mods to deal with this:

It also includes 6 additional body fuel tanks, three in the forward cargo compartment and three in the rear, for extended range. These are manufactured by Marshall Aerospace in Cambridge, UK.
Click to expand...

I wonder what its range is with these six additional tanks?
 
The Orion was a Hunter/Killer. Sound was used to localize, Mad or Radar was used to achieve Kill criteria with a Mk48 torpedo. I suspect the new system will employ other means to accomplish that part of the mission.
 
Henning said:
Thing is, we have water penetrating radar equipped satellites, and they can probably do the job. Our intelligence is going to a satellite based format same as our navigation and communications. MAD booms are probably viewed by the brain trust same as ADFs are viewed by GA.

Plus MAD grid runs offshore have Autonomous UAV written all over them.
Click to expand...

What frequencies do the water penetrating radars work on? How far down under water does it go?

My understanding is that the nuclear subs use a radio with a very low frequency (in the hertz range, and low bandwidth) because that's the only way to communicate with them when under water. The low bandwidth means they send a command whose code has been agreed upon in advance, and I think it is one way to the sub. I'm pretty sure the navy would love to avoid trailing a long antenna off their subs...assuming my info is correct.
 
Last edited:
astanley said:
The UAV bit is really interesting. It's almost as if this is Navy's version of AWACS.
Click to expand...
Bite your tongue, little Mister! :nono: The Navy Stoof turned Hawkeye is the ORIGINAL Airborne Early Warning Command and Control! The Air Force AWACS is a johnny-come-lately, taking twice the engines and 3 times the crew to do the same job! :smilewinkgrin:
 
Last edited:
WE don't hunt subs any more, we track them by satellite. we don't require Magnetic detection any more. the sat does that by other methods.

the old methods are gone, we are more interested in electronic spookie stuff, control of UAVs, etc

Like I have said before the mission has changed, we don't even call them P-3s any more they are EP3-Ds now. spookie sh-- going on.
 
deltafox said:
The Orion was a Hunter/Killer. Sound was used to localize, Mad or Radar was used to achieve Kill criteria with a Mk48 torpedo. I suspect the new system will employ other means to accomplish that part of the mission.
Click to expand...


Acoustic analysis on-board aircraft is a backup to surface ship signal processors (which are more robust and likely to have ACNT riders on board).
 
Henning said:
Thing is, we have water penetrating radar equipped satellites, and they can probably do the job. Our intelligence is going to a satellite based format same as our navigation and communications. MAD booms are probably viewed by the brain trust same as ADFs are viewed by GA.

Plus MAD grid runs offshore have Autonomous UAV written all over them.
Click to expand...

Sub tracking is still a sonarman's game.

RMVs, USVs, and UAVs wil be part of the LCS acoustic mission package -- if and when it's ever deployed.
 
gkainz said:
Bite your tongue, little Mister! :nono: The Navy Stoof turned Hawkeye is the ORIGINAL Airborne Early Warning Command and Control! The Air Force AWACS is a johnny-come-lately, taking twice the engines and 3 times the crew to do the same job! :smilewinkgrin:
Click to expand...

Ahh... the good old Hawkeye. How could I forget her?

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
Hmmm, I heard as a cost cutting measure the Navy was re-introducing the Grumman S-2 Tracker.
 

Attachments

  • S-2 Tracker.jpg
    S-2 Tracker.jpg
    77.3 KB · Views: 15
TangoWhiskey said:
Bruce, the Wiki article says it has mods to deal with this....I wonder what its range is with these six additional tanks?
Click to expand...
Man I hate Fuse tanks.....your AOA has to be just right or you cavitate the pump......sigh.

P3s used to have sonobuoy tubes. Eight of 'em nad innumerable reloads, they were pretty sophisticated phased array type jobs with flux gate direction compensation or the like.... The sonobuoys were monitored from the back of the ship; I rather suspect that they now boradcast to the satellites now....
 
Last edited:
Anthony said:
Hmmm, I heard as a cost cutting measure the Navy was re-introducing the Grumman S-2 Tracker.
Click to expand...

Is it just me, or does the Tracker look like a B-1900 and a Dash-8 got hammered one night . . .

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
bbchien said:
Man I hate Fuse tanks.....your AOA has to be just right or you cavitate the pump......sigh.

P3s used to have sonobuoy tubes. Eight of 'em nad innumerable reloads, they were pretty sophisticated phased array type jobs with flux gate direction compensation or the like.... The sonobuoys were monitored from the back of the ship; I rather suspect that they now boradcast to the satellites now....
Click to expand...


Nope,,,,,, the sats don't need them..The Patrol P- bunch don't care where the subs are, that's not there job any more.

The Sats can tell you with in 6 inches where any sub is and if you want to take them out drop a mine delta within about 5 miles it will hunt and destroy.
 
dmccormack said:
Tell that to the Office of Naval Intelligence. They have a different opinion.
Click to expand...

"Office of Naval Intelligence." won't tell you sh--, but a bunch of chiefs will.

It's here and now, the P- Squadrons are no longer hunting subs.

the P-8 isn't going to either.
 
Anthony said:
Hmmm, I heard as a cost cutting measure the Navy was re-introducing the Grumman S-2 Tracker.
Click to expand...

S-2 Tracker, Stoof ... for ASW

300px-S-2E_Tracker.jpg



E-1 Tracer, Stoof with a roof ... for AEW

300px-E-1B_VAW-11.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top