Doesnt seem like it would really be that difficult of a road to go down. Put some kind of tail mounted GPS guided WCM kit for it and a droge to deploy and slow it down at a set altitude. Bam GPS-guided Torpedo's!
-
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
P3 vs P8 Question
- Thread starter Flathatter13
- Start date
Doesnt seem like it would really be that difficult of a road to go down. Put some kind of tail mounted GPS guided WCM kit for it and a droge to deploy and slow it down at a set altitude. Bam GPS-guided Torpedo's!
The P-8, in addition to being faster than the P-3 and thereby having quicker transit times, will also have an added fuel tank. The stock 737 doesn't carry as much fuel as the P-3 does, so they added a tank (in the wing box i believe). 737 900ER carries 7,837gl (which is way more than other 737's), P-3 carries 9,200gl.
The P-8 burn rate down low is higher than the P-3 and you're not about to loiter an engine in a 737. The need to get that low will be mitigated by enhanced sensor technology. The reason the P-3 gets that low is it increases the accuracy of buoy drops and torp drops.
BTW, ship based torps are the same as the ones used by P-3's. Only subs carry unique torps as no plane or ship could carry a Mk-48 (well, a ship could, but it wouldn't do them a lot of good).
The P-8 has some disadvantages to the P-3, but overall it’ll be a HUGE improvement in Navy MPA capes. The P-3 is a good, solid, plane. It has tracked a LOT of subs and done a lot of very interesting missions throughout it’s life. I enjoyed flying it and would happily do so again but the P-8 will be a much better plane.
Most importantly the P-8 will have a flush toilet and a microwave.
The P-8 burn rate down low is higher than the P-3 and you're not about to loiter an engine in a 737. The need to get that low will be mitigated by enhanced sensor technology. The reason the P-3 gets that low is it increases the accuracy of buoy drops and torp drops.
BTW, ship based torps are the same as the ones used by P-3's. Only subs carry unique torps as no plane or ship could carry a Mk-48 (well, a ship could, but it wouldn't do them a lot of good).
The P-8 has some disadvantages to the P-3, but overall it’ll be a HUGE improvement in Navy MPA capes. The P-3 is a good, solid, plane. It has tracked a LOT of subs and done a lot of very interesting missions throughout it’s life. I enjoyed flying it and would happily do so again but the P-8 will be a much better plane.
Most importantly the P-8 will have a flush toilet and a microwave.
That's a major deceleration. Remember, that torp still has to be able to do some work after submerging. Not impossible, though.
You're also looking at time critical placement. More time in the air = more time for the target to disappear.
Flathatter13
Banned
As I recall, that plane was also empty. Nice cardboard mock-ups of what the sensor stations would look like.
It's irrelevant really, from the reports we're looking at a fundamental change in the way we do ASW (profiles, buoy MOT's, etc). Now that construction on the new MMA hangar has begun here in Jax, it's going to be some interesting times for VP...
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/longshot-a-swooping-haawc-for-torpedos-03340/
I've posted this before in a similar thread, but it is a fairly mature solution to the torpedo problem with the P-8
I've posted this before in a similar thread, but it is a fairly mature solution to the torpedo problem with the P-8
Thanks for the repost Bert...
Maybe one of our SWO buddies could chime in here...but this technical problem cannot be that difficult. We've had systems like ASROC for decades, so the proximity dog just doesn't seem to hunt. Additionally, not being an expert on that system, how was entry speed controlled in that system...certainly the rocket booster got the fish high enough that entry speeds were a concern...
Maybe one of our SWO buddies could chime in here...but this technical problem cannot be that difficult. We've had systems like ASROC for decades, so the proximity dog just doesn't seem to hunt. Additionally, not being an expert on that system, how was entry speed controlled in that system...certainly the rocket booster got the fish high enough that entry speeds were a concern...
Flathatter13
Banned
Couldn't you just use the chute system once the delivery system has expended itself to slow down to an entry speed?
I'll admit, I tend to breeze through the P-8 threads, so I've probably missed some of this, but I'm w/ Zab on this. That link, while technically interesting, doesn't seem to be a realistically accurate delivery system. I know we have to tip-toe around OPSEC details here, but I know I've made a last ditch "BLOODHOUND Away" move that paid off, but had I waited any longer, I'd probably taken another trip to the range.
Also, are guys (VP and/or HSx) flying w/ MK-54s now? We did some testing w/ those, along w/ one of the VP squadrons in HI, and they sounded cool, but we had some "issues" with them. Just wondering if they were in the system now, since all that was probably needed was a software update.
Riiight. Unless the Navy has a whole different way of doing things, I would venture to bet that you will see a lot of the same "ultra light" gear that the P-3 has ripped out and installed in the P-8. Honestly, the 737 w/CFM-56 engines is so damned overpowered that you will have to stuff a LOT of crap in it to make it a dog, even single engine. There is a reason the engines are de-rated to 22K instead of the stock 24K.
It is going to be a great plane, and a versatile tool for the Navy. The P-3 community scored with that one.
Man, this is a great thread !!! Most of the comments seem to revolve around the comparisons & contrast between the P-3 and the P-8. Something to ponder - what if the P-8 were to introduce a radical, revolutionary way to conduct ASW - something completely different than marking on-top buoys at 200' while waiting for a MAD or CPA??? What if the P-8 were to have the technology to stay at altiltude and conduct the traditional "search, localize, track & attack" mission the P-3 does at much lower altitudes? ASW is still the most important maritime mission of the day (and still one of the least glamorous!!!). Consider this . . . . . the SR-71 was an A/C that was developed and introduced in the 1960's and is still light years ahead of many aviation endeavors to this day. Perhaps the technological evolution of ASW has progressed at a rate we haven't considered yet ?????????????
If I recall, the Nimrod had some radar based gadget that could keep track of their pattern without the endless MOT/OTPI drill. I agree that ASW is the most important function of MMA, but until it comes back into vogue, I'm afraid it won't be the subject of a whole lot of leading edge technological innovation. I just hope it doesn't take a sunk capital ship to remind us of the importance of ASW.
Brett