Stuffy, at the risk of telling you something you don't know. Shipwrecks don't move. Many shipwrecks, curiously, are in very deep water and beyond the diving depth of submarines.

The mission is Detect, Deter, Destroy.

A submarine that is hiding isn't going anywhere and is effectively deterred.

There are lots of other technical details but I won't confuse you with further facts.

Stuffy.
The Airbus fuselage is wider. Really?
By how much. And who really cares. Have you ever been down the back of a P-8A? There are virtual tours available on line. To my eye, it looks like there is more than enough space for kit in this digital age. In fact, it looks as if there's almost too much space.

Your understanding of ASW, in the realm of MAD is astoundingly shallow, if you pardon the pun.

According to Smiler Jim (of 201) the problem with the Nimrod was that the floor was too high rather than the fuselage too narrow.

Stuffy,

You forgot to address the lack of the aft Radar, your suggestion - Fly backwards every now and then?

Actually, the 737's fuselage cross-section is that of the B727 (1960).

The B727 shares only the upper fuselage cross-section with the 707 - the lower fuselage is shaped differently.

Nimrod fuselage diameter (upper) 123"
P-8A fuselage diameter 148".
A320 fuselage diameter 155"-6" (listed internal width 12' 2" vs 11' 4" for B737, but the Airbus website says "7 inches wider than its competitors")

A320 aircraft: A320 range, specifications (dimensions, seating capacity, performance), cabin | Airbus | Airbus, a leading aircraft manufacturer

GK, what is important is the vertical position of the floor. As I said above, I was told that the P3 floor position was superior to that of the Nimrod.

I am not sure but I think the Nimrod floor was at the widest section whereas the P3s was lower thus giving a wider cabin. Could be wrong but that is what our expert CO said.

"Boeing itself has teamed up with Bombardier (BBDb.TO) to develop a low-cost version of the Poseidon, using the Canadian company's Challenger 605 business jet in conjunction with P-8 surveillance and radar systems."

Unassuming aircraft a drawcard at Asia's arms bazaar | Reuters

Hardly a low cost P8. At best it will be able to conduct Maritime Surveillance.

There are lots of cheaper options that could do that.

I have actually been down the back of a P-8 Betty, and funny you should say it because that was my first thought as soon as I walked in through the door. There is a LOT of spare space for future growth and added capabilities.


Not meant to be 'a low cost P-8'. It's a maritime surveillance aircraft (no ASW or AsuW capability) that utilises P-8 mission systems. The reduced capability is reflected in the reduced price (company officials put it at a third the unit cost of a P-8).

http://www.casr.ca/ai-boeing-msa-global-express-4.jpg

I'm sure the next concept will be a Cessna 152.

Surely the ceiling was too low, rather than the floor being too high....

Not an insurmountable problem: :)

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/i...oAlSJZvWVsplKW

Melmothtw, if it's fitted with a radar and got windows why exactly can't it do asuw?

I concede the ceiling was too low for Harry Knockolds. There was one aircraft with a dent about a foot above the entrance door. The apocryphal tale was that Harry had forgotten to duck.

It has no weapons capability Jayend, purely surveillence and patrol.

Jayand
It's called a toothless poodle

still better than no surveillance or patrol at all surely?

PN et al - surely the Nimrod floor was in the same place as the Comet's, therefore nowhere near the optimum if looking at the fuselage cross section and what was clearly DH106 hull sat atop an attached underside?

So you're going to tell Jim that he was wrong?

YS

Harry. I see your point. But can we really afford to compromise on this?! Haven't we compromised too much already?!