P3 vs P8 Question

[Flathatter13]

Now I know that this topic has gone around and around but I actually have a new question on the matter I think.

Just finished watching a show on the Military channel about submarines and what it takes to find them etc....

They show the P3 and talk about what it can do and then rolled into the "New" P-8 that will be replacing it, during the description of the P-8 they show the weapons release bay behind the wing in what would be the rear cargo section of a standard 737.

My question is, as they showed the weapons bay full with 4 torpedos and 4 depth charges - Wouldn't that make the plane really heavy with AFT CG ?

Granted airdropped torpedos are nothing like the ones on ships or subs but still they weigh a good bit.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Also they show the P-3 about 50 feet off the water and said it's max endurance is approx 12 hours and then show the P-8 flying at something like 5000 feet using a Flir pod to look at the ocean ???? not sure the point of that but ok.

When the 737 has to get down on the deck how are they planning to match the endurance rate of a turboprop down low?

Anyone have any ideas?

 

[zab1001]

Was the "50 foot off the water" footage real or computer generated?

Anyway...I dunno what a standard 737 cargo weighs, but I'd bet it's comprable to 4 torps and some DCs.

Depth charges...hahahahahahaha....that's pretty funny....

Supposedly the hit on gas onstation will be made up for in transit time to the working area.

 

[FLYTPAY]

My question is, as they showed the weapons bay full with 4 torpedos and 4 depth charges - Wouldn't that make the plane really heavy with AFT CG ?

Granted airdropped torpedos are nothing like the ones on ships or subs but still they weigh a good bit?

The ordnance weighs less than what 30 "average" airline passengers and their bags weigh.

 

[Flathatter13]

Was the "50 foot off the water" footage real or computer generated?

Supposedly the hit on gas onstation will be made up for in transit time to the working area.

Of the P-3 was of course real all the stuff for the P-8 was computer graphics.

I think it would be a bit more weight in the rear end then you are thinking. But not being familure with the P-8 program I will remain quiet and wait for others to chime in.

 

[Brett327]

Of the P-3 was of course real all the stuff for the P-8 was computer graphics.

I think it would be a bit more weight in the rear end then you are thinking. But not being familure with the P-8 program I will remain quiet and wait for others to chime in.

The MK 46/50 Torps are in the 500 lb weight class.

Brett

 

[Flathatter13]

The MK 46/50 Torps are in the 500 lb weight class.

Brett

Ok, so say 4000 pounds but since they are gonna cram that tube with every piece of electronics they can won't that be pushing it, or am I just thinking it is more weight than really will be?

Also with the weapons release behind the wing and between the engines aren't you going to run into weapon release turbulence or are they installing a wind brake like on the F-22 bays.

 

[zab1001]

A torp weighs about 500 pounds.

As far as the altitude, you either misjudged it, or that was some kind of demo. Min alt for P-3 is 200 feet.

Ok, so say 4000 pounds but since they are gonna cram that tube with every piece of electronics they can won't that be pushing it, or am I just thinking it is more weight than really will be?

I'd wager they're using the lightest stuff they can afford, since weight is one of the primary issues with the program.

Also with the weapons release behind the wing and between the engines aren't you going to run into weapon release turbulence or are they installing a wind brake like on the F-22 bays.

I'm sure something is being developed, if necessary, for the release envelopes. Fixed wing ASW is done at 170-200k.

You're asking a lot of very specific questions that I'd bet someone at NAVAIR has considered.

 

[Brett327]

Ok, so say 4000 pounds but since they are gonna cram that tube with every piece of electronics they can won't that be pushing it, or am I just thinking it is more weight than really will be?

Also with the weapons release behind the wing and between the engines aren't you going to run into weapon release turbulence or are they installing a wind brake like on the F-22 bays.

Torps aren't exactly precision weapons (from a delivery POV). They have a drag chute that deploys upon release to stabilize and orient them for water entry.

Brett

 

[Flathatter13]

A torp weighs about 500 pounds.

As far as the altitude, you either misjudged it, or that was some kind of demo. Min alt for P-3 is 200 feet.

You're asking a lot of very specific questions that I'd bet someone at NAVAIR has considered.

Probably misjudged it was watching the show only half hearted but was wondering since they seemed to make the P-8 out as just the latest and greatest thing since submarines were invented and I always was under the impression that the P-3 was the top of its game for subhunting.

 

[Mumbles]

I flew in the Boeing MMA demonstrator a few years back before they got the contract. The tactical profile down low at 200' over the water and 60 degree aob was impressive....especially when he shuts an engine down, levels the wings an proceeds to climb out on a single engine 4000 fpm rate of climb.....better than a p-3 with all 4 turnin.

 

[Flathatter13]

I flew in the Boeing MMA demonstrator a few years back before they got the contract. The tactical profile down low at 200' over the water and 60 degree aob was impressive....especially when he shuts an engine down, levels the wings an proceeds to climb out on a single engine 4000 fpm rate of climb.....better than a p-3 with all 4 turnin.

Don't get me wrong I am not trying to dispute that Boeing has made a good plane, but I find it hard to believe they are going to get the same kind of endurance out of a turbofan down low as they would a turbine prop.

Turbofans are made for thin air and just seems they are going to eat it on burn ratios down low. Granted 737-800's fly east to west routes now for the airlines but I would think in this community loiter time would be a big issue.

 

[Mumbles]

the new IL-38 mod that the Russkies have built for the Indians, (Sea Dragon), is going to be a very very capable MPA platform.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/IL-38.html

check out the esm antenna that looks like a hat

 

[Mumbles]

time on station will be comparable supposedly...even though burn rate is a bit higher... make up a lot of time in the transit which the crew appreciates very much.

 

[scoober78]

Don't get me wrong I am not trying to dispute that Boeing has made a good plane, but I find it hard to believe they are going to get the same kind of endurance out of a turbofan down low as they would a turbine prop.

Turbofans are made for thin air and just seems they are going to eat it on burn ratios down low. Granted 737-800's fly east to west routes now for the airlines but I would think in this community loiter time would be a big issue.

It is...and this has been discussed here a few times. As a few others have said, there are several tactical and technological solutions being talked about including such things as accurately dropping torpedos from the flight levels...a search should turn up the thread.

 

[HeyJoe]

time on station will be comparable supposedly...even though burn rate is a bit higher... make up a lot of time in the transit which the crew appreciates very much.

a not to be undervalued selling point