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

Tail looks taller than the commercial version.

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.

Dangerous ground on THIS forum....:}

How can it possibly be suggested that this aircraft is not living up to the standards that is expected of it? ;)

The camera never lies, nor does CGI

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 :ooh:

"Boo-wee!" lol :p

Boeings first lethal 737, where the aircraft is re-usable! :}

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 ..... :hmm:

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.

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.

I think that is a bit of a stretch, LP. Yes, there is disappointment with its capabilities - it does fall short of the current AP-3C (re radar and ESM) as that was a great upgrade.

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.

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 :hmm:

Can someone please let me know where the P8 MAD head is located please?

MadMark!!! :mad:

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!

On the Indian jets!

The USN P-8s don't have MAD, but the Indian P-8s will have a tail-mounted boom.

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.

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

I'd hand over maritime patrol to the RN.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../5/1688598.jpg

Nimrod.....Pretty???


I would hate to see the girls you hang out with then!

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

Depends on what kind of insect you are.

The 'Mighty Hunter' looked good to me; although, I believe that there were plenty of submariners who didn't like the look of it!

Duncs:ok:

The real question is: Is the P-8 good enough for role.

Boeing and the USN have taken a low risk route, there is a significant amount of P-3 stuff in it and the mission system is a variant of that fitted to MRA4. In effect British tax payer has helped out the USN plenty with that. Any legacy systems can be replaced at a later date when funding permits. As for the airframe and configuration might not be as ideal as the P-3 or Nimrod in role but has some significant advantages when it comes to commonality with the civil world. The Boeing 737 is one of the commonest airline types on the planet, any country operating the type will be able to shop around for spares heck they could even buy retiring high cycle B737 used by the airlines (Ryanair recently retired its first B737-800 series) sit them at an airfield and use them as parts hulks! Nimrod and to a degree the P-3 are single source when it comes to parts. In respect of Nimrod MRA4 with less then ten to be completed BAE Systems would pretty much of had the RAF over a barrel when it came to spares.

As this is always about Nimrod in the end looking back we have to accept that the process that led to its selection and the following mess was flawed.

BAE decided it was a contract that had to be won, they dangled an aircraft under the nose of the RAF and treasury that sounded very attractive. An ideal airframe and engine configuration in the RAF's eyes and the apparent savings of recycling components for the treasury. Any consideration about development issues of recycling elderly airframes or the through life costs of adopting a small number of a unique type were ignored. Of course it should be remembered that the preferred solution at first was the P-7 which in itself was a warmed over P-3. When that was canned then we had the contest that led to Nimrods selection. I do wonder about the sincerity of the RAFs desire to have the P-7 considering that the eventual contest had two different P-3 based solutions one involving rebuilds by Lorel and the other involving new build from Lockheed Martin! Presumably Lockheed Martin didn't reinvent the wheel and used a significant amount of the working from the de-funked P-7 program.

I feel BAE should of looked at alternatives to the Nimrod Airframe preferably based on a civil airliner type. My personal favourite is a solution based on the Boeing 757. Boeing had already done a significant amount of work to develop that aircraft as an ASW/MPA type as a rival to the P-7. It was spacious, long ranged, has British engines and operated by many airlines including British Airways offering clear maintenance synergies. I have heard the main barrier to operating an aircraft with podded engines for the RAF was ditching characteristics. The counter to this is, what is the survivability of the crew with Nimrod (in the North Atlantic in a storm probably low) when ditching and is the B757 good enough for the role. There is another thing as well, the B757 would of made a perfect, cheap replacement for the VC10. Just imagine the maintenance and cost synergies if that had happened...not to mention troops flying out to A-stan now in a modern reliable airline type! Plus you have the added attraction of a possible USN purchase to replace the P-3 with British companies being major sub contractors.

Considering the P8 debate now I wonder if more pragmatic decisions had been made all those years ago we wouldn't be in a better place now. Imagine a B757 based ASW/MPA operating today as well as a transport variant...

Perhaps an Airbus type in current production might provide a working solution.....

Pretty ?

I prefer STUNNING !

All these A340's will be going cheap over the next few years ??

As long as it's an A340-500, otherwise performance may be a tad tame! ;)

Duncan, some thought the Nimrod wasn't ugly enough so they went away and designed the Nimwacs.:}

You dont have to be pretty to be succesful. Susan Boyle showed us that a few years back.

Anyway the shelf life of a 737 after a few years of a corrosive work area should be interesting (magnesium alloy) . Even MRA4 the design team never took that into consideration. Years of MR2 and we wrote the book on corrosion, as most experience sails of to the North Sea as it pays 3 times more than the RAF, we can have shiny new jets that look cool, but simple fact is you will have nobody to operate them or use past experiences to maintain them.

Shame really our government sold us out but its all due to cost saving so we accept that.

Anyone got any performance figures for the P8? Just wondering what a 'good speed for tactical flying (220kts;))' will be in a swept wing jet. Buoy spacing? Pattern laying? etc etc?

Horse feathers squire....I would suggest the US Navy knows about salt water environments and the effect they have on Aircraft far more than the RAF ever dreamed about.

There seem to be two P-8 stories on low-altitude ops. The airframe's been beefed up a lot, but there's still a lot of work on weapons and concepts for high altitude operations. Apparently a few operators are beginning to look at re-lifed P-3s from Navy stocks.

I remember the Boeing Rep a few years ago (pre-binning UK MPA) challenging the very knowledgeable UK/US audience for a Maritime activity that could not be done from high level. The shouts came thick and fast especially when the tricky concept of cloud came up:

'Drop a tight buoy pattern'
'Read a ship's name'
'Drop a dingy to a survivor'
'Take a photograph'
'Lase for a weapon'
'Perform a show of force'
'FLIR search'
'Discriminate a survivor from wreckage'
'Spot an oil slick'
'Spot a vessel on fire'
'Spot deployed fishing nets'
'Perform a MAD run'
'Discriminate between blue ships and red ones'

On and on it went and the poor chap looked quite upset. He didn't even challenge the bloke who shouted 'strafing seals'.

What - no "drop a thingy that makes a big bang" ...???:eek:

Looks like a chance to see one close up at Joint Warrior:

RAF Lossiemouth - Events

Lookout never really seemed to be one of the requirements on the P-3 - once caught a periscope (and ECM mast) almost directly underneath a P-3 which was at 2000ft as we came in at 200 ft to relieve him on task, just as he finished telling us the area was clear. He seemed a bit miffed as we called in Certsub and exercise kill at the same time.
Presumably this (lack of lookout requirement) has carried over to the P-8.

Surely there is a lesson to be learned.
Instead of insisting on a Rolls Royce solution, as presumably many/most of you reckon the Nimrod was, the USN accepted a "good enough" but affordable solution in the P8, based on a commercial airframe that may not be ideal, but is affordable.
I would remind the posters who put down the P8 with such apparent relish, that it is real, and future ideal/best/superior/magnificent Nimrod is extinct.
I am sure that with a "can do" attitude, the P8 will be very effective.

Putting my head above the parapet, but with the new approach to defence matters with the Japanese, and their relaxing of the rule on export of defence material, would the new (four engined) Kawasaki P-1 be a suitable/likely option?

Must admit M the M, that was my first thought when I heard the news too :)

Mart and MFC - Well, DC is in Nippon at the moment and has announced new defence tie ups. A Kwacker P-1 with British mission kit, anybody?:confused:!;)

In the past ten to fifteen years, P-3 Mission areas have expanded considerably in terms of the varieties of kit and sensor packages used on patrol flights, to include some "feet dry" missions.

P-8 will fit into a joint mission requirements niche that isn't solely "maritime" when all is said and done.

As to "lookouts" there are a variety of sensors now in use that are far better than Mk 1 Mod 0 eyeball.

I am still not sure if standard P-8 kit will include a refueling boom. I think it should, to fulfill maritime patrol requirements.

Been a few years since I was in a position where I knew a bit about this program, so I don't know what changes have been made.