View Full Version : 737-P8 sub hunter article
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeings-p-8-is-the-737-with-missiles-sonar-and-a-specialty-in-hunting-submarines/Boeing’s P-8 is the 737 with missiles, sonar and a specialty in hunting submarinesBoeing’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
betty swallox
3rd May 2018, 22:20
And your point is...?
Probably that most pax jet airframes could do the job.
OTTOMH, small 4 jet with LL loiter capability on 2 may be even better. ;)
And your point is...?
Well sometimes people in the military aviation field are interested in what public info about military planes is available - as compared to what they may or may not know about the non- public info.
So your reason for asking re my point is ??
West Coast
3rd May 2018, 23:21
Thanks for the article Conso. As far as I’m concerned, you don’t need a point to post articles like this.
betty swallox
4th May 2018, 02:52
Conso. Great stuff! Please don’t think me mischievous! Simply put, I’ve read a lot of nonsense on here about P-8A. Thank you for posting!
Just This Once...
4th May 2018, 06:55
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.
Jackonicko
4th May 2018, 17:13
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…..
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…..
So who is to blame ? Which vendor ?
DaveyBoy
4th May 2018, 23:03
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…..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atDXtvo6hIg
Jackonicko
5th May 2018, 10:07
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.
stilton
5th May 2018, 10:28
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?
Mil-26Man
5th May 2018, 15:37
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?
They are now - routinely operating as low as 250 ft.
betty swallox
6th May 2018, 15:18
200 feet...
200 feet...
So perhaps the ' flying bidet ' would be appropriate ?
betty swallox
6th May 2018, 23:34
...could be tricky as the toilet faces sideways...!
...could be tricky as the toilet faces sideways...!
You mean it cant sideslip ? Think of the cost savings
Surplus
7th May 2018, 06:30
200 feet...
That'd be a good height for MAD in the P8I Neptune, you'd have to switch the aft radar off though. :rolleyes:
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.
That's hardly cricket, taking evasive actions!
Lonewolf_50
7th May 2018, 15:37
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?
You can visually spot a sub at 10,000 feet, but you have to know what to look for and it needs to be committing an indiscretion (and you need decent vis and not very much sea state). The low altitude (which isn't 10,000') was a part of the requirement for the aircraft. I saw a slide on it regarding the default mission profile from the spec. I'll see if I can find it.
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.
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?
The P-8 routinely operates at 200 ft now. Indeed during the early proposal/demonstration phase, Boeing pilots made a big show of the 737's low altitude performance and handling qualities and showed how with a single engine the 737 had far greater climb performance than the P-3 with three engines. The Navy guys were suitably impressed.
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.
MATELO
8th May 2018, 15:29
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.
As an ASW platform, you would pretty much want it to strictly be a hunter/killer for subs.
Also, its not just about tracking and knowing positions, with the greatest lens in the world, it is better getting a photo from 200ft rather than 10,000ft.
NorthSouth
8th May 2018, 16:49
As an ASW platform, you would pretty much want it to strictly be a hunter/killer for subs.
Also, its not just about tracking and knowing positions, with the greatest lens in the world, it is better getting a photo from 200ft rather than 10,000ft.Yeah but if there's nothing sticking above the surface to photograph...
Lonewolf_50
8th May 2018, 20:10
As an ASW platform, you would pretty much want it to strictly be a hunter/killer for subs. No, not in the year 2018. Everything has to be multi purpose anymore. The P-3's I worked with in the early 00's did a load of work that had zero, zilch, nada to do with ASW.
Also, its not just about tracking and knowing positions, with the greatest lens in the world, it is better getting a photo from 200ft rather than 10,000ft. I'd invite you to catch up on ASW in the 21st century. (Though what you say certainly fits with the training I had in the 70's - 90's ... )
BluSdUp
13th May 2018, 13:58
Here in Norway the issue of Coastguard support for fishery support and low level magnetic anomaly detection is being questioned.
Sounds like a great platform to me, fuel is not such an issue , me thinks. Even if the P3- Orion is a great Loiterer, this beast can get to places quickly and stay high with a typical 2.4 ton FF.
I would love to bang around in a 737-800 at 2-500 feet , at 160 to 340 kts.
Looks like a lot of bang for the buck!
Regards
Cpt B
As an ASW platform, you would pretty much want it to strictly be a hunter/killer for subs.I'm trying not to be rude, but your view is very very out of date. The P-3 has been in the inventory for over half a century and it was way way more than sub hunter/killer. I spent many years in a P-3 cockpit and only a small percentage of that time was spent as a sub hunter. The P-3 does even less sub hunting today than it did in my day. And the P-8 is orders of magnitude more of a multi-role aircraft than the P-3. It's first and foremost a sensor platform. If you can get your acoustic sensors and weapons to be effective at high altitude, that is CERTAINLY where you want to be..
Also, its not just about tracking and knowing positions, with the greatest lens in the world, it is better getting a photo from 200ft rather than 10,000ft.Taking photos of subs went away even before the P-3 came into service and that was over a half century ago. Yes, the early P-3s had a 7 million candlepower searchlight, but that was to enable use of the Bullpup missile against surface targets. The Bullpup was guided visually. Even if you're looking for a surfaced sub or even a sub with just its periscope out of the water, modern radars are much much more effective at doing that than the human eyeball even in full daylight, never mind at night. And those radars work much much better at altitude. Again, I don't mean to be rude, but your statements indicate a quaintly obsolete perspective.