• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

First flight of the P-8A Poseidon and all things related to transition

Stubby

Ask the Chief
My insanity comment comes from the way I've seen the community do business, i.e. deploying a squadron from Brunswick to Jax (calling it a deployment) while at the same time sending a squadron from Jax to the Med.

I'm with Hoover, “that was retarded.” VP has had to find it's footing a couple of times. That stupid "deployment" came as VP had to seriously revamp it's flight hour/airframe philosophy.

Back in '92/'93 I did a "deployment" out of Moffett Field where we deployed to Adak Alaska, Acapulco Mexico (no kidding), Panama, and still kept a det at Moffett. That was right after the cold war ended and everyone wondered what was going to happen to ASW... (and do I have to mention who became President was in 1992?)

I guess every platform has it's growing (and shrinking) pains...
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
By the way, its an oven, not a microwave.

Idiot haters. I don't know how the deployment cycles are going these days, but every one of my deployments was a 6 month ordeal of 12 on/12 off where you were lucky to get a day or two off in a month.

Brett
 

PropStop

Kool-Aid free since 2001.
pilot
Contributor
Idiot haters. I don't know how the deployment cycles are going these days, but every one of my deployments was a 6 month ordeal of 12 on/12 off where you were lucky to get a day or two off in a month.

Brett

not much has changed!
 

The Stinkster

Now who do I blame?
pilot
1) Collect per diem for being on deployment

2) Not get sea time.

3) Calls 90 day deployments "long cruise"

4) never land on boats

5) has a great microwave

Another jem! I never deployed for less than 6 months, never called ANYTHING "cruise" and as for sea time........I think I am more than covering my share at this time. I am not sure what the deal is, but there seems to be a lot of misconception and bad info going around about a)MPA missions/capabilities, b)MMA design and function so I will try to at least clear up what I can.

As for MPA life...only the EP-3 guys go out on "Det" instead of depolying. Different airframe, different type of ops. The P-3C guys do a variety of missions.....ISR, ASW, ASUW, OM, DM, Strike, etc. None of these missions are going away (if you think ASW is a dead mission.....) and the new aircraft is designed to keep the same mission areas, but improve speed, ceiling, etc. As for those odd depolyments, most recently those were East coast squadrons whose primary deploment area and missions had dwindled with the change in world dynamics. It didn't stay that way for long, the community redid the deployment set-up, the east coast closed most of its deployment sights and the squadrons all set up to deploy to the same three sights. We also gained a surge capability by doing this, further enhancing our capabilities.
As for the MMA, it is a go, it is on pace and it is pretty solid as a replacement to the P-3. I was one of those guys that was not really sold on going away from the turboprop concept, but after they brought the test demo aircraft out and we flew it.....it will do nicely. Flies well at 200' and very responsive and maneauverable....loiter speed almost exactly the same...refuelable to keep onsta time solid. The first 100 are paid for, how many others come is hard to say. The FIT is already up and running at the rag. A couple of things to clear up some confusion on the bird. It IS a 737-800ER, but it is not a stock off the shelf one. The fuselage is a bit longer, (can't remember the exact number but it is around 20ft), to accomodate the buoy launcher. The wings are different, having been thickened and beefed up to be capable of hard points to carry the array of weapons that the P-3 carries. There are a couple of differences internal as well, and the bomb bay design is also unique, but to finish this point, it is based on the 737, it is not a roll off the rack one stamped SWA, one stamped USN aircraft.
I believe that by previous logic in this thread, my current job and stationing has now carrier qualled me, so I plan on getting my weekly night trap tonight. Should be a gas....I think I will go from there to paddles, since I am stationed here AND have watched it on the plat. Sorry...couldn't resist. Anyway, I know this is long, but it is an attempt to combat ignorance. Cheers!
 

STLEngineer

Registered User
pilot
Believe it's got a -900ish wing on it (greater span?). Some guys here in St. Louis are doing that design, but I can't be sure.

Part of Boeing's pitch on it was that it could be integrated into the current 737 line, saving the trip to Witchita to perform mods like they're doing with the KC-767.
 

The Stinkster

Now who do I blame?
pilot
Believe it's got a -900ish wing on it (greater span?). Some guys here in St. Louis are doing that design, but I can't be sure.

Part of Boeing's pitch on it was that it could be integrated into the current 737 line, saving the trip to Witchita to perform mods like they're doing with the KC-767.

Correct...easily integrated, thus cheeper, but not a stock 737 (exactly the same off the line) by any means. It is a good deal for us all around. I think you are right about the 900ish wing, but I can't remember...
 

Machine

Super *********
pilot
None
Site Admin
Correct...easily integrated, thus cheeper, but not a stock 737 (exactly the same off the line) by any means. It is a good deal for us all around. I think you are right about the 900ish wing, but I can't remember...


Yes. It has -900 wings for increased strength for weapons stations with swept winglets like the 747's instead of the normal ones.
 

Machine

Super *********
pilot
None
Site Admin
Just seems we could get a much smaller/cheaper aircraft to do the same thing. Why do you need such a large crew to accomplish the mission that is required? Pretty good idea about the community. Was stationed in Jax and was forced to put up with the VP insanity.

MPA = Long-Range ASW. How could a smaller plane compare with a 1200 NM range w/ a 4 hour ONSTA period?
 

chrispaul

NFO
None
All in all, I think VP is going to do just fine. I've been away from the community for a while, but it appears to me that they've done a fairly good job at "diversifying" their capabilities as Stinkster says. They can do Strike, ASW, ASUW, they're providing video/comm/targeting support to the guys on the ground in Iraq, etc. Even my brother in VAQ shared airspace with the P-3 guys in Afganistan his last deployment. What a change! I my days (early 90's), an over-land mission was unheard of! All-in-all, they're becoming the Swiss army knife of Naval Aviation.

The mere fact that the Navy is buying them a new, more capable aircraft is testament to somebody thinking this is a valuable tool in the Navy's bag of tricks.

Also, it's pretty nice for a CENTCOM or whatever to relatively easily park a fairly-lethal, but at the same time non-descript civilian-looking plane (to the average Joe) in just about any airfield in the world, without causing all the political ruckus that may come about when CVN-xx enters local waters. (ie, Karachi - been there, Red Sea airfields - done that).

Sure, other aircraft can do specific jobs better because they are designed for those roles. To 1rotorhead's credit, they can place a Mk-48 on target with much greater accuracy than a P-3, but what platform can bring such a wide range of capabilities to the table?
 

STLEngineer

Registered User
pilot
Yes. It has -900 wings for increased strength for weapons stations with swept winglets like the 747's instead of the normal ones.

Right, they got similar efficiency without the same icing concerns with the raked wingtip.

Aeroelastic effects on that commercial 8-foot winglet have to be horrible when it get's iced up.
 
Top