ASW without puke?! Not in my Navy!!

[CommodoreMid]

Riding sidewise is going to be different from an airsickness perspective. I haven't done any tactical flights yet so I can't comment, though I already miss having a window.

With respect to ranges and plot stab, from what I know now and from what our instructors have experienced, our acoustic system is light years ahead of SASP. Just the fact that you're not cold starting the damn thing 3 times while ONSTA is good enough, but the processing is awesome. One scenario I was told was there was an exercise with a P-3 and a P-8 ONSTA at the same time and the P-8 was experiencing significantly larger ODRs. With regards to plot stab, the sonobuoy positioning system pretty much eliminates the need to do MOTs. While we still do them for warm fuzzies, we pretty much retain the capability in the event the SPS shits itself (which is unlikely from what I've been told). The whole we can only be up high thing is a myth. The plane is capable of the same flight profiles for ASW as the P-3; it's just there is an eventual goal of doing high altitude ASW.

 

[HooverPilot]

So dumb question: Why the hell did they redesign an aircraft which had a MISSION at low-altitude with turbofans, which are only fuel-efficient at high-altitude?

The Viking was very efficient at the low altitudes with turbofans. At loiter speeds, those engines don't drink so much. And turbo fans can decrease in efficiency with a lot of altitude.

 

[koolaiddrinker]

The Viking was very efficient at the low altitudes with turbofans. At loiter speeds, those engines don't drink so much. And turbo fans can decrease in efficiency with a lot of altitude.

The decision to go with the 737 had more to do, from what I understand, with the idea that we might end up flying this plane for 30-50 years and Lockheed's option (which a lot of the community liked) was just an updated P-3. The bet was that the 737 would be more relevant in the future. And naming it the Multi Mission Aircraft wasn't an accident. MPRA has become more than ASW, wise or not. Also, given that it was a commercial platform, parts would be readily available for its lifespan. So we're trying not to repeat the mistakes of the past. (Never means you won't make new ones though).

Again, from what I understand ('cause I'm stuck on staff duty and live vicariously through email), the 737 does just fine down low, including in fuel consumption. Plus you get onstation faster, so time ontop/patrol radius should be a wash. But the "paradigm shift," to use a really hingy term, is that ASW may be all about high altitude in the future. There's a lot of stuff in development and I will personally be long retired by the point the vision is fully realized. But if it works, it will be a whole new way to go about our business.

See http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Nav...orpedoes_High_Altitude_Launch_Capability.html
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cf...play&key=C8AEF3CE-30B0-4C3D-829C-50FEF3A301F3

(I can't comment on whether there was a grand P-3 community conspiracy to get a commercial airliner in the fleet. But most of the guys who had the juice to make the decision, are long gone and don't benefit from it).

Good news: The Navy is thinking ahead.
Bad news: Sometimes the future moves out from under you and you're stuck in a procurement contract that is irrelevant. I think the P-8 mitigates that as well as it can be mitigated. I agree with HAL, ASW is not what it once was, and without some structural changes (longer IDRC or specialized crews) there just isn't the time to devote to it. My plane commander board didn't even touch on ISR, ground troop support or any of the GUCCI stuff our squadron spent most of last deployment doing. Fifteen years ago, I just had to draw the sound speed profile and do a nuke and a diesel scenario. Bad news is, today's crews are stretched across many more mission areas. Good news is, maybe having those other mission areas got us a new airplane.

P-8's not perfect, but it is a needed upgrade. Interesting times for the next few years in the community. It will be interesting seeing how BAMS (Sorry, the Triton) gets integrated and if it has a role in ASW/low altitude surveillance.

 

[robav8r]

Serious question though... I understand this might be hard to answer here, but what exactly makes the sensors able to detect things better than before? I understand the processing will be substantially better, but on the helo side, actual MDRs and PRDs aren't all that much more impressive than they were before with legacy equipment.

MAC is very unique in the way it pings. It's an SSQ-62/110 on steroids. It has the ability (because of source level, wave/beam forms and signal processing) to do much more than we have been able to do with legacy active and incoherent sources.

 

[picklesuit]

HAL,
I was just busting your balls...we always get the "There I was in the Cold War" speech from the sim Bubbas, nice to talk shit back. You guys definitely had the hours on top, we have Jack and Shit when it comes to that, and it really hurt when I was trying to get my SS-1's through FIUT. They just don't have the community knowledge anymore, especially away from Jax.
As far as the jetliner conspiracy, while funny in concept, the reality is the P-8 guys are not getting that many hours. When you can do 90% of your syllabus in the Sim, and each squadron doing the FIT is the priority, hours in plane come at a premium.
Should be interesting to see how it plays out in 5 or so years when most of the squadrons have their planes (and Pickle is looking to try and come back through as a CAT-3)
Pickle

 

[HAL Pilot]

Just curious what you mean here. "Wet" organic assets or airborne? They definitely have airborne assets, but they're for localization and not detection. But I may be misunderstanding what you were saying.

Airborne. I'm sure there are "wet" assests lurking around.

My first tour, the carrier had S-3s, H-3s and Lamps who's primary focus was on ASW. Plane guard, SSC, ISR, etc. all came second and these squadrons trained for ASW daily. First the S-3s lost their ASW mission and eventually went away and now it seems the helos do ASW as an after thought. I'm way out of date and could be way wrong, but that is what it looks like from the outside.

Edit: Detection versus localization. In my JO days, every BG had at least 2 or 3 small boys with tails in the water continously and S-3s for search/detection. Still had the tail ships during my DH tour but S-3s were becoming Sea Control squadrons and tankers. Localization was S-3s and helos. There were also always a couple friendly SSNs in the neighborhood.

 

[HAL Pilot]

As far as the jetliner conspiracy, while funny in concept, the reality is the P-8 guys are not getting that many hours. When you can do 90% of your syllabus in the Sim, and each squadron doing the FIT is the priority, hours in plane come at a premium.
Should be interesting to see how it plays out in 5 or so years when most of the squadrons have their planes (and Pickle is looking to try and come back through as a CAT-3)
Pickle

What is your source on this?

I wouldn't say Pickle has bad gouge as far as pilot training goes. If the Navy bought a level D 737 sim for pilot training, then certainly 90% of the pilot training if not more could be done in the sim. We (airline) use the sim for almost 100% of our flight training. The first time I ever flew and landed a 727, 737, 717 or 767 I was on a revenue flight with paying pax in back. The only time I fly with a check airman is for my annual line check (one leg) or if I'm doing IOE (initial operating experience) on a new plane or new position (i.e. Captain upgrade). Then IOE isn't really flight training, it's observing me to see if I learned in training and for the non-flying part that goes along with every flight (wx, diverts, paperwork, pax procedures, ICAO procedures, etc.)

 

[robav8r]

The decision to go with the 737 had more to do, from what I understand, with the idea that we might end up flying this plane for 30-50 years and Lockheed's option (which a lot of the community liked) was just an updated P-3.

I am told that Boeing will stop making the 737 in the 2020 timeframe. I think the decision to go with the P-8 vice an improved "P-3" had more to do with leveraging the worldwide logistics infrastructure currently supporting 737's.

 

[Renegade One]

...if you are tracking them, why tip them off?

That makes sense...when that's the case.

 

[Renegade One]

^^^ LOTS of good, informative, and educational responses up there. Thanks to all.

 

[jmcquate]

Can you track a boat under the layer from the air (excuse and ignore if the question is an OPSEC issue)?

 

[scoolbubba]

Airborne. I'm sure there are "wet" assests lurking around.

My first tour, the carrier had S-3s, H-3s and Lamps who's primary focus was on ASW. Plane guard, SSC, ISR, etc. all came second and these squadrons trained for ASW daily. First the S-3s lost their ASW mission and eventually went away and now it seems the helos do ASW as an after thought. I'm way out of date and could be way wrong, but that is what it looks like from the outside.

Edit: Detection versus localization. In my JO days, every BG had at least 2 or 3 small boys with tails in the water continously and S-3s for search/detection. Still had the tail ships during my DH tour but S-3s were becoming Sea Control squadrons and tankers. Localization was S-3s and helos. There were also always a couple friendly SSNs in the neighborhood.

Don't discount the Romeos. Those guys come out to play and are almost always an ace up the sleeve, especially the proficient dudes.

 

[Fog]

I am told that Boeing will stop making the 737 in the 2020 timeframe . . .

Boeing won't start delivering the commercial 737-Max series of a/c until 2017. I can't imagine they would stop building that airframe until some time after 2030. JMHO.

 

[Brett327]

Can you track a boat under the layer from the air (excuse and ignore if the question is an OPSEC issue)?

Yes.

 

[robav8r]

Boeing won't start delivering the commercial 737-Max series of a/c until 2017. I can't imagine they would stop building that airframe until some time after 2030. JMHO.

Based on the success of the airframe, I can understand that. I heard it from a Boeing/P-8 program dude at Pax . . . .