RAF Poseidon - Not too long to wait?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: cardboard box in't middle of t'road
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but a sub is a sub, oceanography is oceanography, noisy Chinese SSN, Pakistan and Burma, sorry Bud, but I've spent more time on top of Russian nucs than you've had hot dinners. An acoustics operator
Possibly to keep as similar a fit as possible to the US? They don't bother with MAD on the P-8 - I seem to remember some discussion at the time it first flew on this but they answer seemed to be it wasn't going to spend much time at low level IIRC.
Sorry, 37 years in ASW and I can't think of a single 'comfortable' idea! Autolocus, yes, that was a suspicious premise on day one of my first OCU. The Indians have deemed that MAD is necessary, 'Those that know'. what a wonderful phrase that is, it assumes that any contrary view is null and void, not worth looking at. I can't go into my background, but I'm really getting hacked off with people who should know better. I can understand if you've taken 'the company $', but please, leave the rest of the Kipper Fleet out of your justifications.
Lots of interesting public domain info out there:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...ne-sonar-soks/
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/0...ubmarines.html
https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...ne-sonar-soks/
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/0...ubmarines.html
https://www.dst.defence.gov.au/innov...h-sounder-lads
Last edited by golder; 7th Dec 2019 at 12:12.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Party Animal! Great post. Lovely to see some positivity on here.
The first flight took place at NAS Jax on Wednesday. A mix of 54 Sqn and CXX aircrew. I heard that the flight went swimmingly, with no issues. Fantastic to see an RAF roundel on an MPA again!!
The first flight took place at NAS Jax on Wednesday. A mix of 54 Sqn and CXX aircrew. I heard that the flight went swimmingly, with no issues. Fantastic to see an RAF roundel on an MPA again!!
Last edited by betty swallox; 7th Dec 2019 at 14:41.
God knows we've waited long enough to see that idiotic policy finally laid to rest..................
SWIMMINGLY is possibly not quite what one needs from an MPA!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: One Three Seven, Disco Heaven.
Age: 64
Posts: 2,353
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
First RAF P8 arriving at Kinloss on the 4th Feb between 13.00 and 15.00, according to a post on Fighter Control.
https://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/for...56031#p1156031
https://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/for...56031#p1156031
For Surplus:
Let me offer you a couple of ideas on why the US P-8 might not have a MAD boom on it.
They are going to leave the MAD (or other) hunting circles to the helicopters, under the operational theory that the open ocean or GI/UK gap scenario that we grew up with in the Cold War (when you had all of that contact time) isn't how the requirements document for P-8 was written.
FWIW: the MH-60R does have MAD. (The MAD reeling machine's on the starboard side of the helicopter, just as it was on the SH-60B and the SH-60F).
MAD is a localization tool more than a search tool.
I have some friends (P-3 guys) who used to loved to do MAD traps in a P-3; but in a combined force ASW op, rather than "one plane by itself", they tended to leave low level stuff to the rotary wing assets.Better air space deconfliction that way, and for that matter the P-3's tended to try and stay ahead of the problem ... with their on station time/range/speed advantage over ships and helos, they could.
So why would the Indian P-8 have MAD?
I'll take a SWAG on that: their operational concept includes more frequent instances of the P-8 as a solo ASW platform who needs that localization tool for the mission environment that the Indian Navy envision. And maybe some of the (other) stuff isn't in their equipment suite just yet.
As I am not in the Indian Navy, the above is a guess.
There could be other reasons.
Decision by UK in that regard have already been covered.
Let me offer you a couple of ideas on why the US P-8 might not have a MAD boom on it.
They are going to leave the MAD (or other) hunting circles to the helicopters, under the operational theory that the open ocean or GI/UK gap scenario that we grew up with in the Cold War (when you had all of that contact time) isn't how the requirements document for P-8 was written.
FWIW: the MH-60R does have MAD. (The MAD reeling machine's on the starboard side of the helicopter, just as it was on the SH-60B and the SH-60F).
MAD is a localization tool more than a search tool.
I have some friends (P-3 guys) who used to loved to do MAD traps in a P-3; but in a combined force ASW op, rather than "one plane by itself", they tended to leave low level stuff to the rotary wing assets.Better air space deconfliction that way, and for that matter the P-3's tended to try and stay ahead of the problem ... with their on station time/range/speed advantage over ships and helos, they could.
So why would the Indian P-8 have MAD?
I'll take a SWAG on that: their operational concept includes more frequent instances of the P-8 as a solo ASW platform who needs that localization tool for the mission environment that the Indian Navy envision. And maybe some of the (other) stuff isn't in their equipment suite just yet.
As I am not in the Indian Navy, the above is a guess.
There could be other reasons.
Decision by UK in that regard have already been covered.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 30th Jan 2020 at 19:48.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Too far South
Age: 49
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
