Boeing P-8
Thread Starter
Boeing P-8
The Boeing P-8 is pretty....unlike the Nimrod....but is it an advance in MPA capability?
In flight video of Navy's new P-8 aircraft - YouTube
In flight video of Navy's new P-8 aircraft - YouTube
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All very nice, but it will actually be able to do much. Talking to some USN aviation dudes the other day it appears that it will spend most of its time at FL nosebleed very rarely venturing down to low level. And it doesn't have GPS fitted sonobuoys so I can't see it tracking any subs particularly accurately from up there. The Australians who I have also spoken with are hugley disappointed in its capabilities and, if rumour is correct, they are looking for a way out of the project as well. Will the UK buy any - I hope not as they are overpriced and underperforming but we do need a replacement for the MR2/MRA4 though. Whilst the good old MR2 was perhaps not attractive to some (although it was very pleasing to my eye) it was good at all its roles especially those that we are not allowed to talk about.
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's pretty clear the Nimrod is no 'looker' but the suggestion that a pimped 737 'looks good' is really stretching the imagination. A 707 nose bolted onto a tail that is 5 times too big (exaggerating for effect) and all the modern lines of a 1800's steamship do not make the 737/P8 a fine looking machine. I know it's all in the eye of the beholder but even with some 4000 hrs in them, I still think the FLUFF earned it's name 
I know of one yachtsman bobbing around in his dinghy in an outrageous sea state who said 'It (The Nimrod) was the most beautiful sight in the world. I guess he was biased though.
As for the first clip, amazing, a 737 can fly .....
The second clips shows the P8 at low level 'doing' ASW.
I found the following quote from an interview given by Commander Johansson, who is CNAF Maritime Readiness/CNAP Deputy Operations:-
'The P8 is envisioned by some as being a higher altitude ASW platform. I don’t foresee the P-8 primarily operating at higher altitudes in all tactical phases of flight and in fact, the P-8 is designed to fly through the entire range of the P-3 flight envelope.' (I think he's insinuating that it can do low level ASW without actually using the words, possibly to avoid trouble down the track.)
I mean, it can obviously go low level, or it couldn't take off and land.
He then appears to contradict himself later in the interview with :-
'How do we work in littoral at a higher altitude with other players in the mix? In the past during the Cold War in a blue water environment, we used to drop buoys from high altitude all the time, there was nobody else out there. In a littoral, I envision multiple friendly surface and low flying aircraft below you, and all these surface warriors and aviators below you are a little concerned about you dropping sonobuoys from high altitude.' (There's the high altitude for ASW bit again.)
Without GPS fitted sonobuoys, ASW from altitude is a non starter because of the need for accurate placement of buoys due to the low passive ranges on most modern submarines. (However, thankfully, there are exceptions to this rule
)
Most Taccos struggle to get buoys ahead from 1000 feet, never mind 20,000.
The lack of low altitude performance of the P8 has given rise to some 'inventive' solutions to get 'eyes on' below the cloud base, obviously the crew in the second clip didn't have traditional North Atlantic weather when they got the feather on EO.
The sonobuoy launched Coyote and Voyeur UAVs look good fun, (if the two winged master race aren't allowed to fly them.) but their feasibility, endurance, cost and serviceability are all yet to be proven.
As for the first clip, amazing, a 737 can fly .....
The second clips shows the P8 at low level 'doing' ASW.
I found the following quote from an interview given by Commander Johansson, who is CNAF Maritime Readiness/CNAP Deputy Operations:-
'The P8 is envisioned by some as being a higher altitude ASW platform. I don’t foresee the P-8 primarily operating at higher altitudes in all tactical phases of flight and in fact, the P-8 is designed to fly through the entire range of the P-3 flight envelope.' (I think he's insinuating that it can do low level ASW without actually using the words, possibly to avoid trouble down the track.)
I mean, it can obviously go low level, or it couldn't take off and land.
He then appears to contradict himself later in the interview with :-
'How do we work in littoral at a higher altitude with other players in the mix? In the past during the Cold War in a blue water environment, we used to drop buoys from high altitude all the time, there was nobody else out there. In a littoral, I envision multiple friendly surface and low flying aircraft below you, and all these surface warriors and aviators below you are a little concerned about you dropping sonobuoys from high altitude.' (There's the high altitude for ASW bit again.)
Without GPS fitted sonobuoys, ASW from altitude is a non starter because of the need for accurate placement of buoys due to the low passive ranges on most modern submarines. (However, thankfully, there are exceptions to this rule
)Most Taccos struggle to get buoys ahead from 1000 feet, never mind 20,000.
The lack of low altitude performance of the P8 has given rise to some 'inventive' solutions to get 'eyes on' below the cloud base, obviously the crew in the second clip didn't have traditional North Atlantic weather when they got the feather on EO.
The sonobuoy launched Coyote and Voyeur UAVs look good fun, (if the two winged master race aren't allowed to fly them.) but their feasibility, endurance, cost and serviceability are all yet to be proven.
Last edited by Siggie; 31st Mar 2012 at 08:57.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,819
Received 2,799 Likes
on
1,192 Posts
What ever happened to the four engines are better than two at low level?
it would never be acceptable to the Uk until it was an ex airline cast off suitably re-engined, then had a UK fit added, and the price with all these modifications had at least trebled over the cost of buying new thus allowing us to reduce the fleet down on a cost grounds to a level that failed to meet the requirements.... Additionally we would then attempt to rent them under some private initiative scheme which would then end up costing even more than the outright purchase option. Then we would buy them with a mind on scrapping them before they come into service...
Personally I doubt this Government would dare the blow more than the cost of operating the MR 4 in service on a replacement because of the political backlash from such an idea.. Politics these days gets in the way of doing what is needed, these point scoring sessions over pasties against each other instead of getting on and doing the job is pathetic.
it would never be acceptable to the Uk until it was an ex airline cast off suitably re-engined, then had a UK fit added, and the price with all these modifications had at least trebled over the cost of buying new thus allowing us to reduce the fleet down on a cost grounds to a level that failed to meet the requirements.... Additionally we would then attempt to rent them under some private initiative scheme which would then end up costing even more than the outright purchase option. Then we would buy them with a mind on scrapping them before they come into service...
Personally I doubt this Government would dare the blow more than the cost of operating the MR 4 in service on a replacement because of the political backlash from such an idea.. Politics these days gets in the way of doing what is needed, these point scoring sessions over pasties against each other instead of getting on and doing the job is pathetic.
LP: The Australians who I have also spoken with are hugley disappointed in its capabilities and, if rumour is correct, they are looking for a way out of the project as well.
I think perhaps RAAF would like to keep some AP-3C to make up the P-8 capability gap. But there are some advantages: speed to get to AO, commonality with existing Wedgetail and BBJ.
And mainly as USN, RCAF and probably RAF will operate P-8, it makes it the 'only show in town'. Then we will upgrade our P-8Bs to an AP-8B standard to pick up the shortfalls.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I liked the "Running in for MAD" and "MAD-MAN, MAD-MAN, MAD-MAN" calls - yet I see no MAD boom or anywhere a MAD head could be on the aircraft without it being interfered with by the airframe or its contents
Can someone please let me know where the P8 MAD head is located please?
MadMark!!!
Can someone please let me know where the P8 MAD head is located please?
MadMark!!!
Wow!!! Let's scrap real aircraft and do it all in Microsoft Flight Sim, with accents. As for the fourteen year old pilot, just excellent, she knew all the right words. I'm off to watch it again!
Can someone please let me know where the P8 MAD head is located please?
The USN P-8s don't have MAD, but the Indian P-8s will have a tail-mounted boom.
Jackonicko, I'm still waiting for you to return my 35mm slides!! Are you going to do so - or should I simply advise all my contacts to avoid any co-operation with your journalistic requests?
Over to you.......
Over to you.......
Thread Starter
Working at altitude and dropping Sonobuoys is a case where they land could be just about anywhere with the very rare chance they might even be somewhere near where you wanted them. I have heard that has been a small snag to the concept of the P-8 mode of operation.
If the nice sailor man is worried about dropping buoys on friendly vessels and aircraft.....that should suggest it is akin to Mr. Biles launching his arrows from his Longbow.....not telling where they are going to wind up.
If the nice sailor man is worried about dropping buoys on friendly vessels and aircraft.....that should suggest it is akin to Mr. Biles launching his arrows from his Longbow.....not telling where they are going to wind up.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice video Glojo,
but how does having all that cheese onboard affect the P-8's performance? That was definitely the cheesiest video I've seen in some time, anyway...
Still, nice to see Grant Mitchell again on the telly...although he seems to have gotten younger since he was last on.
P-8'll have to do, the RAF will just have to do the best it can with it.
Nimrod was a good looking aircraft, by the way, although the Mk3 let the side down a bit.
Dave
but how does having all that cheese onboard affect the P-8's performance? That was definitely the cheesiest video I've seen in some time, anyway...
Still, nice to see Grant Mitchell again on the telly...although he seems to have gotten younger since he was last on.
P-8'll have to do, the RAF will just have to do the best it can with it.
Nimrod was a good looking aircraft, by the way, although the Mk3 let the side down a bit.
Dave
Thread Starter
Nimrod.....Pretty???
I would hate to see the girls you hang out with then!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends where you view it from, nose on is not a flattering angle <g>
The 'hand it to the RN' argument is fair, the only thing I'd have against that (assuming there's not a significant amount of Nimrod expertise remaining when P8 finally turned up) is a worry that the RN would treat it as a poor relation and not do the job/fund it properly. (A bit like the RAF ended up doing, I suppose!)
Dave
The 'hand it to the RN' argument is fair, the only thing I'd have against that (assuming there's not a significant amount of Nimrod expertise remaining when P8 finally turned up) is a worry that the RN would treat it as a poor relation and not do the job/fund it properly. (A bit like the RAF ended up doing, I suppose!)
Dave