New MPA?
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The selection of the 737-based P-8A Poseidon means that the US Navy needs to act on these problems, especially since the P-8A can perform low swoops if necessary, but its airframe is optimized for cruising at altitude. A wish to extend the useful life of the hard-worked P3 Orion aircrafts also contributes to the urgency for action.
The US Navy is, as a consequence, pursuing a way to launch torpedoes from high altitude, possibly also reducing the need for the aircraft to maneuver and turn to a suitable release point by having the torpedo itself navigating to the splash point. With the airplane no longer required to carry out complex maneuvers and turns at low altitude, the useful life of the airframe obviously is protected, and the airplane can serve for a longer time, undergoing less stress. Here comes into play the HAAWC (High-Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapons Concept), a program to take the US standard light torpedo, the MK54, and give it wings.
Lockheed Martin puts forward the LongShot wing adapter kit: it enables the torpedo to glide on a range well in excess of 10 nautical miles and is also said to enable "off axis" launches so the aircraft doesn't have to maneuver to reach a precise splash point over a contact, but can immediately attack even if badly positioned.
The US Navy is, as a consequence, pursuing a way to launch torpedoes from high altitude, possibly also reducing the need for the aircraft to maneuver and turn to a suitable release point by having the torpedo itself navigating to the splash point. With the airplane no longer required to carry out complex maneuvers and turns at low altitude, the useful life of the airframe obviously is protected, and the airplane can serve for a longer time, undergoing less stress. Here comes into play the HAAWC (High-Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapons Concept), a program to take the US standard light torpedo, the MK54, and give it wings.
Lockheed Martin puts forward the LongShot wing adapter kit: it enables the torpedo to glide on a range well in excess of 10 nautical miles and is also said to enable "off axis" launches so the aircraft doesn't have to maneuver to reach a precise splash point over a contact, but can immediately attack even if badly positioned.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,754
Received 2,738 Likes
on
1,166 Posts
They pulled some seriously high G I read ages ago on that Anti Mine degaussing Wellington, it was flying trying to detonate mines but wasn't having a lot of luck, so he brought it round dropped down megga low and it detonated underneath resulting in the vertical G loading
Last edited by NutLoose; 12th Jul 2013 at 20:34.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: various
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet in Vitro
An inaccurate and misleading post. When Boeing started on the P-8 they decided to use a 737 fuselage, a wing design already proven (albeit with modified wing tips) joined these 2 components together and strengthened the result due to the demanding environment (low level) that it was planned for be aircraft to operate in.
You may want to think your logic behind HAAWC concept; you haven't quite grasped it correctly.
I assure you that the P-8 operates very nicely at low level; although that is only my opinion has someone who is a PPC qualified on the aircraft.
An inaccurate and misleading post. When Boeing started on the P-8 they decided to use a 737 fuselage, a wing design already proven (albeit with modified wing tips) joined these 2 components together and strengthened the result due to the demanding environment (low level) that it was planned for be aircraft to operate in.
You may want to think your logic behind HAAWC concept; you haven't quite grasped it correctly.
I assure you that the P-8 operates very nicely at low level; although that is only my opinion has someone who is a PPC qualified on the aircraft.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am merely posting information which is readily available on the www and asking why. What are the drivers for high level ASW. There is little threat from subs themselves. Trials during the 80s proved that the concept of firing a SAN from a submerged vessel was flawed. In the littoral being low is more of an advantage (RFI being a major issue these days) Being able to drive your weapon to the ISP I can see the benefit of that, but a good system should allow you to do that anyway (SRS/ GPS enabled buoys and a good Nav system negates the need for on tops).
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Timely use of sensors is also important. Acoustic sensors need to be deployed accurately. You can not normally attack a datum you need to get back into contact unless other things are driving your ROE. Dropping buoys from height adds complications: wind effects the ballistics and the time to drop/ get to the desired point in the water from height add to the pool of problems. If you wish to drive the buoy to a desired water entry point the Nav system on the buoy needs to be up and running at the point of release, therefore needs to be linked to the weapon system onboard the release platform up to the point of release. How do you drive the buoy, glide or powered, both have issues including sub counter detection of a powered buoy. Weapons will have the same issues.Release to service will also be interesting. A lot of effort for no much benefit. Unless there are other reasons why you do not want to tackle the problem be being at low level.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: N/A
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are the drivers for high level ASW.
Emphatically not because anyone would have the slightest qualms about flying P-8A at 200' all day every day for the next 40 years if that's what it is needed to do.
There are degrees of passing IOT&E.
Now, Jet In Vitro, I must congratulate you on a stellar start to your PPRuNe career. In your first ever post you implied that European employment law might apply to members of the Armed Forces, when it doesn’t.*
In your second post you asked a question about RJ basing that had been answered, less than 24 hours before, on the very same thead.
In all your subsequent posts thus far, you have been on this thread, arguing about the P-8A’s low level performance with a bunch of P-8A flying instructors, and (this is my favourite) arguing about how well P-8A passed IOT&E with… wait for it… members of the P-8A Integrated Test Team that flew the test flights and wrote the report!
Bravo, sir, bravo!
You are either a Troll, or an Air Rank.
* That’s the short answer. Before people try to correct me, a slightly longer answer is that any employment law doesn’t automatically apply to the Armed Forces because we’re not ‘employed’ in the sense that we don’t have contracts of employment, and most EU directives that might have been relevant specifically exempt the Armed Forces of any member state anyway. Despite that, HMG did ‘opt us in’ to specific acts that suited it, such as anti-discrimination acts, even though it didn’t have to. None affect whether it might be lawful for the MOD to impose a RoS. As it happens, I don’t believe that the MOD has never gone to court to enforce one, but that’s another matter.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well thank you.
I feel suitably humbled by a seasoned PPer.
However, you have made assumptions based on assumptions.
The questions I have asked have not been answered.
I feel suitably humbled by a seasoned PPer.
However, you have made assumptions based on assumptions.
The questions I have asked have not been answered.
Last edited by Jet In Vitro; 14th Jul 2013 at 07:11.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DB,
I think you have been unfair to JIV.
Indeed he has merely asked questions, not stated facts. The discussion on where the RJ is to be delivered did not come to a conclusion it was specualtion.
PT
I think you have been unfair to JIV.
Indeed he has merely asked questions, not stated facts. The discussion on where the RJ is to be delivered did not come to a conclusion it was specualtion.
PT
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RTC
It is obvious that the supporters of the P8 programme on this thread are heavily involved in the seedcorn process and as such are probably in the best position to comment on the aircrafts capabilities. I though am somewhat disappointed at the lack of balanced criticism of this programme from these individuals and hence we may yet again may end up procuring a US built platform that subsequently does not meet its stated potential. The P3 was never as good an ASW platform as the Nimrod MR2. I suspect the P8 does not meet the capability of the now defunct MRA4. I have still to see proof that ASW can be done at high level yet the P8 continues to seek capable high level sensors and weapons. I hope our representatives on the P8 maintain an objective viewpoint and are not swayed by the hard sell(in its many guises) of US industry.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^ This is a good post (apart from the P3 V Nimrod hyperbole)
The kipper fleet has history here. I was in the room when the MRA4 (correction Nimrod 2000) dissenters (or which there were many) were ordered to "get in line" with the programme. Do not under estimate how much the operator can influence military purchases (a fact very well known to the sales teams of the big players).
History too with the high level thing. The searchwater was initially optimised for medium level work...it did not take too long for the fleet to get back down in the weeds again. ASW is a varied game and technology moves on, but part of it is always going to be conducted at low level for all sorts of reasons.
I am not suggesting the P8 is not a great bit of kit...I have absolutely no knowledge of it's capabilities whatsoever. But in the HIGHLY UNLIKELY event we get an proper fully formed MPA force back and opertional again, one hopes (perhaps naively) that we learn all the lessons of history.
PS
The kipper fleet has history here. I was in the room when the MRA4 (correction Nimrod 2000) dissenters (or which there were many) were ordered to "get in line" with the programme. Do not under estimate how much the operator can influence military purchases (a fact very well known to the sales teams of the big players).
History too with the high level thing. The searchwater was initially optimised for medium level work...it did not take too long for the fleet to get back down in the weeds again. ASW is a varied game and technology moves on, but part of it is always going to be conducted at low level for all sorts of reasons.
I am not suggesting the P8 is not a great bit of kit...I have absolutely no knowledge of it's capabilities whatsoever. But in the HIGHLY UNLIKELY event we get an proper fully formed MPA force back and opertional again, one hopes (perhaps naively) that we learn all the lessons of history.
PS
Last edited by The Old Fat One; 15th Jul 2013 at 10:19.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the difference is that the P8 is flying and the Nimrod was binned as we could never get it to work
we desperately need a long range PATROL aircraft - but does it need to have ASW capability as well?
we desperately need a long range PATROL aircraft - but does it need to have ASW capability as well?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the difference is that the P8 is flying and the Nimrod was binned as we could never get it to work
we desperately need a long range PATROL aircraft - but does it need to have ASW capability as well?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't say it was untrue (although others will). I said it was only part of the picture. There are heaps of posts on here on the cancellation of the MRA4 and I have no intention of raking it all up again.
And talking of simplistic...
Seriously, is that the best you have? Well if they are the only threat to the security of the UK, we can sh1tcan 90 percent of our armed forces then.
Pprune eh...what you gonna do
And talking of simplistic...
And why? - Al Qaida has no submarines..........
Pprune eh...what you gonna do
what is not true?
And why? - Al Qaida has no submarines..........
we desperately need a long range PATROL aircraft - but does it need to have ASW capability as well?
An ASW MPA/MMA provides a flexible, high speed, long range, renewable weapons carrying, semi-persistant capability (i.e, 24/7 ops for a couple of weeks) in defence of our SSBN's and CSG's, that cannot be replicated by any other asset.
That is why a key mitigation strategy for the scrapping of the MRA4 is to ask our allies for help in the guise of using their ASW MPA to do the job on behalf of UK plc. The requirement has not gone away. We just don't have a UK aircraft that can fill the void right now.
