Back to Squawk list
  • 29

Meet the Navy's New $150M Submarine-Destroying Jet

נשלח לפני
Boeing's P-8 Poseidon plane may look a lot like the company's 737 but it's actually a highly advanced military aircraft that's equipped to hunt submarines. The U.S. Navy has just deployed several of the airplanes to Japan to increase U.S. military presence around the disputed Senkaku Islands, which Japan controls and China claims. It's the first ever deployment for the aircraft, which has been in development for nearly a decade. Here's a look at the game-changing… ( עוד...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Jim Piche 2
Attack subs could do a better job than airborne anti-submarine warfare. And we already have them.
myron swanson 1
an enemy sub cant counter attack a plane.
bigkahuna400 3
Can anyone tell me why we need 117 of these unless we are giving them away??
joel wiley 4
I think to replace the 130 - 150 P-3 inventory, just guessing.
Ken Mitchell 3
Speaking as a old P-3C TACCO, it takes some time to track the submarine from initial detection to localization to a weapons fix, and since we're not actually ATTACKING the submarines, trying to continue to track a moving submarine 1,000 miles off the coast for a few days or weeks at a time. It takes 3 aircraft continuously in the air (one on station, one in transit out, one in transit back) and a couple of additional birds in maintenance, so call it five aircraft full time to track one submarine.

The Russians have MANY submarines, and the Chinese are building more. So are the Iranians. 117 P-8 airframes is about the ragged minimum to maintain even a cursory ASW coverage.
mike SUT 2
Sure....12 Active duty squadrons, 1 Fleet Replacement Squadron aka FRC, RAG, 2 Reserve Squadrons. Give VP-30 10 aircraft for training, split the rest up and you get 8 planes to each active duty, the rest to the 2 reserve squadrons. One might become the VIP bird for Commander Patrol Wings East or West
Ken Mitchell 1
Please note that there used to be 12 P-3 squadrons - on EACH COAST. 6 squadrons in Brunswick, 6 in Jax, 7 at Moffett and 5 at Barbers Point. PLUS two training squadrons AND several reserve squadrons.

But Barbers Point, Moffett and Brunswick are all closed as are half the old squadrons. There are a total of 13 current active duty squadrons, plus one training squadron.
sparkie624 2
Nice looking plane.. Job well done Boeing...
Marcus Pradel 2
There goes another few billion to fight the war before last..
T. D. Blodgett 3
Anti-submarine strategy may be key to the wars of the future, now that surface ships can be destroyed by small, fast missiles.
T. D. Blodgett 2
"After years of conjecture, details have begun to emerge of a "kill weapon" developed by the Chinese to target and destroy U.S. aircraft carriers."
joel wiley 2
I understand your point that none of the casualties from our current and previous engagements have been caused by torpedo attacks or sub launched cruise missiles.

That said, IMHO American carriers are a significant component of US force projections. The navy is understandably reticent to allow the existing inventory to go the way of the Lexington and Yorktown. Besides, this will free up the venerable P-3s to be used as fire fighting tankers in a sort of 'swords to plowshares' program. That is a job for which 737s, however modified, are unsuited
siriusloon 1
They can do a lot more than just hunt and kill Russian subs. They also have an overland ISR mission. P-3s were used for that in Afghanistan, but the P-8 will do it better.
Colin OSullivan 1
Nice new design of the 737. By the look of it- it seems that it is a 737-800 which is the most common model of it. They should change the nose to make the plane "More" aerodynamic or taking some weight of the plane to make it faster and to have better maneuverability.
Donald Poorman 1
For all the naysayers....would you prefer our military to use antiquated equipment in a modernized, high tech world? I would suggest that updating 50 year old equipment is not just an investment, it is a necessity!
James Carlson 1
Modernized as needed, of course, unless the mission itself has disappeared and we're just running through the purchase plans on autopilot. I suspect many of the naysayers are concerned about the latter. It was certainly important 70+ years ago, but I'd call myself at least doubtful of the need to re-fight scenarios from WWII.

It's an unclear cost/benefit solution, and modernization (no matter how desirable) can't be the only factor.
PhotoFinish 2
Guess the planners spend a whole lotta money preparing for even low probability scenarios like 2 major navies from 2 major world powers battling on the open water.

But God help us if they do. The Americans, Chinese and Russians all gave nukes. The Iranians are trying desperately to get them.

The new generations of military gear are very expensive. Some starred individuals must worry thar the expensive kit can be taken out with relatively inexpensive missiles. So spending lots of money becomes the excuse for spending lots more.
gary campbell 1
Interesting. Why no winglets on pictured plane?
sparkie624 1
The winglets actually cause more stress on the wing. Most people do not realize it, but the 737 with factory winglets have a computer that will limit commanded movements based on the weight of the aircraft. This is to prevent the wings from being damaged or departing the a/c as a result of over stress. They may have left them off because of expected maneuvers. Make note of the heavy flight control movements at 25 to 35 seconds in the video. They are really rolling the plane and going into a dive... With winglets this may have forced too much stress on the aircraft wings.
sparkie624 3
Also, the main reason for the Winglets is not looks, but rather to save fuel... our Military and Government has proven time and time again that saving money is not a number 1 priority.
Bob Green 1
I wonder about the durability and mission distance and length of this versus the P3. Seemed like P3s stayed airborne for a really long time. Anyone with experience about that on the P3s?
Ken Mitchell 1
Yup. Typical endurance was about 11-12 hours, unless you're doing some kind of stunt. Like the one where they iced the fuel hoses in dry ice to get the fuel as condensed as possible, and then took off immediately. They flew from Atsugi Japan to Pax River, Maryland, non-stop. As I said, a stunt.

But there were a number of missions of 13-14 hours, loitering at high altitude with one engine shut down. I worry that the P-8 has less onstation time, less endurance, and a shorter combat radius, but it wasn't my decision.
Robert Ferrentino 1
War with China?
Sidney Smith 1
All sub mariners fear aircraft which they cannot counter attack. Helicopters need somewhere to land the P-3/P-8 can go along ways out. The P-3 operated from remote bases. The P-8 can be deployed from U.S. soil, refueled in flight, more payload (weapons) and room for more crews with the 737. Re task an entire squadron to the other side of the world in 18 hours, nice to have. By the way everyone has subs now, not just the Russians.
Ken Mitchell 0
Alas, no; the P-8 Poseidon will not be in-flight-refuellable, and will have less on-station loiter time than the P-3s it is replacing. But since everybody knows props bad, jets good, switching to a 737 airframe will at least make it possible for P-8 pilots to move directly to the airlines after leaving the Navy.

And to be honest, the P-3s in the fleet now are about worn out.
John L. Sullivan 1
Props GOOD .... jets adequate I don't want to question someone probably more qualified than I, being only a back of the aircraft type, but my watch must have been really fast for some on-atations.
elle freeley 1
yep, gotta kill all life on earth, chemtrails & chemclouds in the skies, kill the whales in the oceans, we're all doomed.
John L. Sullivan 2
I haven't hunted since VN, but between killing wildlife and killing Americans..........All the wildlife disappears.
myron swanson 1
they're "contrails" you spelled it wrong
joel wiley 1
Different states- contrails in the natural state become chemtrails after filtering thru the observer's aluminum foil helmet.
elle freeley -1
i did not spell it wrong, guess i should of said geo-engineering. i see chemtrails all the time around here, in this rural area. it's called weather modification, SRM (solar radiation management) SAG (stratospheric aerosol geo-engineering), it's been going on for years, now they want to use global warming as an excuse. do some research into the subject it's well documented, Dr. David Keith a geo-engineering scientist admits they plan on dumping 500K tons of nano aluminum oxide into the air to reflect the sun away from the earth to clean up the CO2 mess, to prevent greenhouse gases. Read up on HAARP, or HAMP or SAG or SRM. there are over 100 bills in congress right now pertaining to weather modification. fools don't see it.
joel wiley 0
Right! If it weren't for those pesky chemtrails et al, we'd all live forever. Except for the submarines of country X.
Fred Lee 0
Using the 737 airframe will reduce cost and maintenance for this platforms.
Almost everyone knows how to build stealth subs so this P8 with advanced capabilities is needed.
Bernard Gaffney 0
Kinda of off topic, but I was in the Army in Korea in the early 70's after Nam and got s hop on a P3 to Iwakuni from Osan on a P3. Lost an out board engine while banked to that side and damn near rolled the P3. Needless to say I lost my lunch.

כניסה לאתר

עדיין אין לך חשבון? הירשם כעת (ללא תשלום) כדי ליהנות מתכונות מותאמות-אישית, מהתראות טיסה ועוד!
אתר זה משתמש בקוקיות. המשך השימוש והניווט שלך באתר מביע את הסכמתך לכך.
האם ידעת שמעקב הטיסות של FlightAware נתמך על ידי פרסום?
תוכל לעזור לנו לוודא ש-FlightAware יישאר חינמי בכך שתאשר קבלת מודעות מ אנו מתאמצים מאוד להקפיד על כך שהמודעות שלנו יהיו רלוונטיות ולא מטרידות כדי ליצור עבורך חוויית משתמש מעולה. מהיר וקל לכלול את המודעות של FlightAware ברשימה הלבנה ואפשר גם לשקול את האפשרות ליצור חשבונות פרמיום.