737-P8 sub hunter article
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
737-P8 sub hunter article
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...ng-submarines/
goes on
Boeing’s P-8 is the 737 with missiles, sonar and a specialty in hunting submarines
Boeing’s P-8 military anti-submarine version of the 737 is built very differently and yet integrated into the regular 737 supply chain. That makes it one of the Pentagon’s most efficient programs.
goes on
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When a programme runs as smoothly as the P-8 it puts a lie to the oft-touted excuse that all military procurements will be hugely late and massively over budget. The P-8s fly-away cost is now considerably less than 2 Typhoons - quite remarkable.
Hmmm. Smoothly.
The aircraft itself may not be late, but many of the capabilities that it's supposed to incorporate have not been delivered on time.
It wasn't supposed to run around doing ASW like a P-3…..
So tell us, when exactly will the frontline get the ability to drop weapons from high altitude, that is supposed to be key to the aircraft's CONOPS?
And when will MAC actually be available, using a buoy that is capable of multi static operation and that is actually capable of generating a coherent wave form?
It can't be that difficult - the RN Merlins have had a multi-static, active coherent system in service for ages…..
The aircraft itself may not be late, but many of the capabilities that it's supposed to incorporate have not been delivered on time.
It wasn't supposed to run around doing ASW like a P-3…..
So tell us, when exactly will the frontline get the ability to drop weapons from high altitude, that is supposed to be key to the aircraft's CONOPS?
And when will MAC actually be available, using a buoy that is capable of multi static operation and that is actually capable of generating a coherent wave form?
It can't be that difficult - the RN Merlins have had a multi-static, active coherent system in service for ages…..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm. Smoothly.
The aircraft itself may not be late, but many of the capabilities that it's supposed to incorporate have not been delivered on time.
It wasn't supposed to run around doing ASW like a P-3…..
So tell us, when exactly will the frontline get the ability to drop weapons from high altitude, that is supposed to be key to the aircraft's CONOPS?
And when will MAC actually be available, using a buoy that is capable of multi static operation and that is actually capable of generating a coherent wave form?
It can't be that difficult - the RN Merlins have had a multi-static, active coherent system in service for ages…..
The aircraft itself may not be late, but many of the capabilities that it's supposed to incorporate have not been delivered on time.
It wasn't supposed to run around doing ASW like a P-3…..
So tell us, when exactly will the frontline get the ability to drop weapons from high altitude, that is supposed to be key to the aircraft's CONOPS?
And when will MAC actually be available, using a buoy that is capable of multi static operation and that is actually capable of generating a coherent wave form?
It can't be that difficult - the RN Merlins have had a multi-static, active coherent system in service for ages…..
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: N/A
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm. Smoothly.
The aircraft itself may not be late, but many of the capabilities that it's supposed to incorporate have not been delivered on time.
It wasn't supposed to run around doing ASW like a P-3…..
So tell us, when exactly will the frontline get the ability to drop weapons from high altitude, that is supposed to be key to the aircraft's CONOPS?
And when will MAC actually be available, using a buoy that is capable of multi static operation and that is actually capable of generating a coherent wave form?
It can't be that difficult - the RN Merlins have had a multi-static, active coherent system in service for ages…..
The aircraft itself may not be late, but many of the capabilities that it's supposed to incorporate have not been delivered on time.
It wasn't supposed to run around doing ASW like a P-3…..
So tell us, when exactly will the frontline get the ability to drop weapons from high altitude, that is supposed to be key to the aircraft's CONOPS?
And when will MAC actually be available, using a buoy that is capable of multi static operation and that is actually capable of generating a coherent wave form?
It can't be that difficult - the RN Merlins have had a multi-static, active coherent system in service for ages…..
Wrong, eh? Every word?
I don't want to be a prophet of doom, and indeed I believe that the P-8A will be a superb aircraft which will provide the UK with a world-leading capability, and that it will represent great value to the UK taxpayer.
But we haven't got to where we are today on P-8A without delays, technical difficulties, and cost, and 'Just this Once's assessment was perhaps a bit simplistic and over-optimistic.
Nor, I suggest, are we 'quite there yet' when it comes to the delivery of key P-8A capabilities.
It was relatively recently that official reports judged that:
"Test results show that MAC Phase 1 sensor capabilities on both aircraft platforms are strongly dependent on search area environmental conditions and adversary evasive actions. During OT&E, MAC Phase 1 clearly provided an effective capability in some test environments and target evasion profiles, but failed to deliver the full capability required by the Navy’s concept of operations and MAC operational requirement documents."
Another report judged that: "This report concluded that the MAC system provides the P-3C with a broad-area ASW search capability in some operational environments and for select target scenarios, but falls short of fleet-defined capabilities needed to protect high value units. Initial test results indicate that MAC performance varies strongly by ocean environmental characteristics and target tactics. Until a fully-capable broad-area ASW search sensor is successfully integrated, the P-8A will be unable to execute the full range of ASW mission tasks defined by the original P-8A Increment 1 ASW concept of operations."
And outside of limited test activity, US Multistatics were dependent on the impulsive 'two bang' SSQ-110 transmit buoy. This is hardly 'coherent' though I understand that they at least want to move to an electro-acoustic source.
2017 DOT&E report extracts:
"P-8A Multi-static Active Coherent (MAC) sensor wide-area anti-submarine warfare (ASW) search test results are inconclusive because only 6 of 24 planned test events were accomplished, mainly due to lack of submarine target availability."
"In FY17, the Navy initiated a re-evaluation of proposed high-altitude ASW operational concepts and requirements. Demonstration of an initial high-altitude sonobuoy employment capability is planned during the FY18 P-8A ECP 4 operational test event. High-Altitude ASW Weapon Capability (HAAWC) MK 54 torpedo developmental testing continued to progress in FY17. The Navy is scheduled to begin P-8A integration testing in FY18 leading to operational testing of the HAAWC system on the P-8A in FY19."
"Operational testing of the emerging P-8A high-altitude ASW capability, including the HAAWC MK 54 torpedo system,
is currently planned for FY19. However, the lack of clear Navy high-altitude ASW concept of operations has delayed
development of employment tactics and operational test plans."
MAC and High Altitude ASW Sensor capability were originally supposed to have been operational in 2016. ("Initial broad-area ASW search capabilities originally included in the P-8A Increment 1 baseline acquisition program….")
And Multistatics using a coherent buoy were successfully trialled on the Nimrod MR.Mk 2 in 2010. Under the UK ASSS/MSA (Active Search Sonobuoy System/Multistatic Active) programme, Multistatic data gathering trials took place in 2004, leading to the development of ALFEA by 2006, and to the provision of an MSA-capable operational flight programme on the MR.Mk 2’s new ASQ-971 processor in 2008.
The Merlin HM2 incorporates a developed version of the same Ultra MultiStatic Active system, I believe, with the ISS-450 (Multistatic Processing Module for MERLIN HM.2) working with a combination of SSQ-926 (electro acoustic source), SSQ-955 (high dynamic range DIFAR), and SSQ-981 (BARRA horizontal planar array receiver), all with embedded precision GPS.
I don't want to be a prophet of doom, and indeed I believe that the P-8A will be a superb aircraft which will provide the UK with a world-leading capability, and that it will represent great value to the UK taxpayer.
But we haven't got to where we are today on P-8A without delays, technical difficulties, and cost, and 'Just this Once's assessment was perhaps a bit simplistic and over-optimistic.
Nor, I suggest, are we 'quite there yet' when it comes to the delivery of key P-8A capabilities.
It was relatively recently that official reports judged that:
"Test results show that MAC Phase 1 sensor capabilities on both aircraft platforms are strongly dependent on search area environmental conditions and adversary evasive actions. During OT&E, MAC Phase 1 clearly provided an effective capability in some test environments and target evasion profiles, but failed to deliver the full capability required by the Navy’s concept of operations and MAC operational requirement documents."
Another report judged that: "This report concluded that the MAC system provides the P-3C with a broad-area ASW search capability in some operational environments and for select target scenarios, but falls short of fleet-defined capabilities needed to protect high value units. Initial test results indicate that MAC performance varies strongly by ocean environmental characteristics and target tactics. Until a fully-capable broad-area ASW search sensor is successfully integrated, the P-8A will be unable to execute the full range of ASW mission tasks defined by the original P-8A Increment 1 ASW concept of operations."
And outside of limited test activity, US Multistatics were dependent on the impulsive 'two bang' SSQ-110 transmit buoy. This is hardly 'coherent' though I understand that they at least want to move to an electro-acoustic source.
2017 DOT&E report extracts:
"P-8A Multi-static Active Coherent (MAC) sensor wide-area anti-submarine warfare (ASW) search test results are inconclusive because only 6 of 24 planned test events were accomplished, mainly due to lack of submarine target availability."
"In FY17, the Navy initiated a re-evaluation of proposed high-altitude ASW operational concepts and requirements. Demonstration of an initial high-altitude sonobuoy employment capability is planned during the FY18 P-8A ECP 4 operational test event. High-Altitude ASW Weapon Capability (HAAWC) MK 54 torpedo developmental testing continued to progress in FY17. The Navy is scheduled to begin P-8A integration testing in FY18 leading to operational testing of the HAAWC system on the P-8A in FY19."
"Operational testing of the emerging P-8A high-altitude ASW capability, including the HAAWC MK 54 torpedo system,
is currently planned for FY19. However, the lack of clear Navy high-altitude ASW concept of operations has delayed
development of employment tactics and operational test plans."
MAC and High Altitude ASW Sensor capability were originally supposed to have been operational in 2016. ("Initial broad-area ASW search capabilities originally included in the P-8A Increment 1 baseline acquisition program….")
And Multistatics using a coherent buoy were successfully trialled on the Nimrod MR.Mk 2 in 2010. Under the UK ASSS/MSA (Active Search Sonobuoy System/Multistatic Active) programme, Multistatic data gathering trials took place in 2004, leading to the development of ALFEA by 2006, and to the provision of an MSA-capable operational flight programme on the MR.Mk 2’s new ASQ-971 processor in 2008.
The Merlin HM2 incorporates a developed version of the same Ultra MultiStatic Active system, I believe, with the ISS-450 (Multistatic Processing Module for MERLIN HM.2) working with a combination of SSQ-926 (electro acoustic source), SSQ-955 (high dynamic range DIFAR), and SSQ-981 (BARRA horizontal planar array receiver), all with embedded precision GPS.
I assume that the apparent preference to conduct operations at high altitude is for fuel conservation alone or am I missing something ?
will the P8 ever be used at low altitude, where sub hunters used to roam, close enough to visually spot a submarine on the surface?
will the P8 ever be used at low altitude, where sub hunters used to roam, close enough to visually spot a submarine on the surface?
They are now - routinely operating as low as 250 ft.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: cardboard box in't middle of t'road
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
That'd be a good height for MAD in the P8I Neptune, you'd have to switch the aft radar off though. 
That's hardly cricket, taking evasive actions!
Test results show that MAC Phase 1 sensor capabilities on both aircraft platforms are strongly dependent on search area environmental conditions and adversary evasive actions.
Hmm. can't find that slide.
There was a time/alt figure that showed take off, transit to "on station" and then descent to on station altitude and then climb and return. Will post a pic if I figure out where I saved it.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The era of visually sighting and tracking a submarine ended some time ago, and operating at low altitude for that reason ended with it. Operating at high altitude does TWO things. It reduces fuel burn. Duh. But it also tremendously increases the range of its sensors, both passive and active. Remember this is a MULTI-role/MULTI-mission aircraft. Operating it at low altitude effectively enables it to operate strictly as a sub hunter/killer and severely restricts its abilities in the other roles/missions. And if you can effectively and accurately drop sono bouys AND effectively know their positions at all times while at high altitude, there's really no need to drop to low altitude for the sub hunter mission. And if you have a weapon that can be released at high altitude and still be effective, there's no reason to drop to low altitude for the sub killer mission. And remaining at high altitude makes all your non acoustic sensors much much more effective.
And finally, remember that the multi static sonar system (still in development) is designed as a "broad area" search/track system. In order to provide true "broad area" coverage, the aircraft needs to be at high altitude. Dropping down to low altitude turns it into a localized search/track system.
Last edited by KenV; 8th May 2018 at 14:53.