Go Back   HawaiiThreads.com > Ka Nohona > Hawaii Hall
FAQ Members List Social Groups Calendar Search Search Latest Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 3rd, 2007, 08:11 PM
helen's Avatar
helen helen is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 9,864
Default Navy P-8A

Wednesday's (1/3/07) Advertiser had an article about the US Navy planning on replacing the P-3C Orion turboprop planes with the P-8A jets some where between the years 2011 to 2019.

They are thinking of basing these jets at either Kaneohe Bay Marine Corp Air Station or at Hickam Air Force Base.

People in Kaneohe might complain about the noise from the jets taking off and landing but since the P-8A are the miltary versions of the Boeing 737 they shouldn't have a problem being based at Hickam Air Force Base.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old January 3rd, 2007, 08:45 PM
lavagal's Avatar
lavagal lavagal is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Honolulu, Oahu
Posts: 2,616
Default Re: Navy P-8A

Quote:
Originally Posted by helen View Post
Wednesday's (1/3/07) Advertiser had an article about the US Navy planning on replacing the P-3C Orion turboprop planes with the P-8A jets some where between the years 2011 to 2019.

They are thinking of basing these jets at either Kaneohe Bay Marine Corp Air Station or at Hickam Air Force Base.

People in Kaneohe might complain about the noise from the jets taking off and landing but since the P-8A are the miltary versions of the Boeing 737 they shouldn't have a problem being based at Hickam Air Force Base.
I for one think this is pretty terrific; I'm a military jet junky and have flown in just about everything but a fighter and even got to work on the Stealth and the Shuttle while at Edwards AFB in the Mojave--as a computer operator on the ground grunt! My chances of flying in a fighter are probably nil since I'm a mom now!

But I am CERTAIN that Buzz1941 will have something to say about the P-8As.
__________________
Aloha from Lavagal
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old January 3rd, 2007, 09:31 PM
joshuatree joshuatree is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,824
Default Re: Navy P-8A

Quote:
Originally Posted by helen View Post
Wednesday's (1/3/07) Advertiser had an article about the US Navy planning on replacing the P-3C Orion turboprop planes with the P-8A jets some where between the years 2011 to 2019.

They are thinking of basing these jets at either Kaneohe Bay Marine Corp Air Station or at Hickam Air Force Base.

People in Kaneohe might complain about the noise from the jets taking off and landing but since the P-8A are the miltary versions of the Boeing 737 they shouldn't have a problem being based at Hickam Air Force Base.
Actually, the noise might not be an issue at all. The P-8A is based on the 737-800, one of the latest iterations of the 737 so it's engine noise probably will be a lot less than the old P3-Cs.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old January 3rd, 2007, 10:47 PM
buzz1941's Avatar
buzz1941 buzz1941 is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,086
Default Re: Navy P-8A

Although it's a turboprop, the P-3 is essentially a WWII-era design. It's based on the Electra, and has been used by the Navy since 1961. In other words, it's had long legs.
The P-8 is pretty much based on the Boeing 737. Hawaii is also one of the sites selected for contiinuous UAV coverage, starting in a few years. Robots on patrol!
With ASW aircraft, the deal is long patrols and the ability to get low and slow if need be, and a minimal electronic clutter. The P-3 was good at that stuff. I hope the current generation of jet engines can handle it without stalling.
That said, I flew some missions with the VP boys a while back. One day, the first P-3 we got into threw a prop blade on the ramp. The second had a cockpit fire while taxiiing. The third flew fine.
The Aussies are watching. They need to replace their P-3s too.
__________________
Burl Burlingame
"Art is never finished, only abandoned." -- Leonardo Da Vinci
honoluluagonizer.com
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old January 4th, 2007, 03:49 AM
GeckoGeek's Avatar
GeckoGeek GeckoGeek is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,043
Default Re: Navy P-8A

Quote:
Originally Posted by buzz1941 View Post
I hope the current generation of jet engines can handle it without stalling.
I understand on the P-3s they frequently shut down engines to spend more time on station. With the P-8: ETOPS, 2 engines. Not a lot of room for things to go wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old January 4th, 2007, 04:04 AM
helen's Avatar
helen helen is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 9,864
Default Re: Navy P-8A

According to this article from Wikipedia, it's usually one engine that is shutdown to extend the range.

I think for the P-8 they could just thottle back on the engines.

I don't know about now but back in the 1970's a P-3 Orion would practice touch and go landings at Lihue Airport, which if you think about it why would a non-cargo plane do such a routine?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old January 4th, 2007, 04:40 AM
GeckoGeek's Avatar
GeckoGeek GeckoGeek is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,043
Default Re: Navy P-8A

Quote:
Originally Posted by helen View Post
According to this article from Wikipedia, it's usually one engine that is shutdown to extend the range.

I think for the P-8 they could just thottle back on the engines.

I don't know about now but back in the 1970's a P-3 Orion would practice touch and go landings at Lihue Airport, which if you think about it why would a non-cargo plane do such a routine?
The article does say sometimes two were shut down, so I'm technically right.

Yes, they probably would throttle back. A little too much risk shutting down when you only have two. But then there's the concern that the engines won't stall when running slow.

As for touch-n-gos, that's all about pilot training. I don't understand what being non-cargo have anything to do with it?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old January 4th, 2007, 01:01 PM
helen's Avatar
helen helen is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 9,864
Default Re: Navy P-8A

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeckoGeek View Post
But then there's the concern that the engines won't stall when running slow.
You mean the plane don't stall when the engines don't produce enough thrust to make the plane go fast enough to generate enough lift to overcome the drag on it.


Quote:
As for touch-n-gos, that's all about pilot training. I don't understand what being non-cargo have anything to do with it?
A touch and go landing would be the sort of thing a cargo plane would use to deliver cargo in a combat situation.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old January 4th, 2007, 01:15 PM
buzz1941's Avatar
buzz1941 buzz1941 is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,086
Default Re: Navy P-8A

Quote:
Originally Posted by helen View Post
I don't know about now but back in the 1970's a P-3 Orion would practice touch and go landings at Lihue Airport, which if you think about it why would a non-cargo plane do such a routine?
Maybe you remember that one did it without deploying the gear. Prang-g-g-g-g!!!!
__________________
Burl Burlingame
"Art is never finished, only abandoned." -- Leonardo Da Vinci
honoluluagonizer.com
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old January 4th, 2007, 01:32 PM
joshuatree joshuatree is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,824
Default Re: Navy P-8A

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeckoGeek View Post
I understand on the P-3s they frequently shut down engines to spend more time on station. With the P-8: ETOPS, 2 engines. Not a lot of room for things to go wrong.
With ETOPS certification, basically you are stating the 2 jet engines have a reliability rate that is good enough to sub a 3 or more engine plane. And also, it means even if 1 engine does fail, the plane can still fly with the remaining engine for X minutes, I think the current limit is 180 min but they are looking to push it even more. I'm sure the military did an evaluation of risk on 2 engine plane vs cost savings of a 2 engine plane.

I read the P-8 has 6 extra tanks in the fuselage to extend range so that probably compensates the P-3's ability to cruise with 2 engines shut off.

Ultimately, I still think a turboprop is better suited to loitering over open areas for extended periods but these days, no American aircraft manufacturer builds large turboprops and I don't think the military wanted to procure anti-sub planes from foreign manufacturers. Otherwise, I know the civilian ATR-72 has a military version but it's a French/Spanish company.

On second thought, the C130H does come to mind but I think that one is too big for anti-sub role.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old January 4th, 2007, 01:55 PM
helen's Avatar
helen helen is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 9,864
Default Re: Navy P-8A

Quote:
Originally Posted by buzz1941 View Post
Maybe you remember that one did it without deploying the gear. Prang-g-g-g-g!!!!
I think it happen after I left Kauai, maybe in 1976 or 1977. I do remember reading about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joshuatree View Post
Ultimately, I still think a turboprop is better suited to loitering over open areas for extended periods

On second thought, the C130H does come to mind but I think that one is too big for anti-sub role.
Are they still building C130?

On one hand using turboprops make sense since they can fly slower and lower, while a jet can cover an area much faster.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old January 4th, 2007, 03:03 PM
joshuatree joshuatree is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,824
Default Re: Navy P-8A

Quote:
Originally Posted by helen View Post
Are they still building C130?

On one hand using turboprops make sense since they can fly slower and lower, while a jet can cover an area much faster.
Yep, the Canadian military just put in an order last Nov for 17 more. The only version still in production is the C130J but it has been modernized, even has those new composite scimitar propellors.

I would think slower and better loitering time makes more sense for a sub hunter since a turboprop will still outrun any ship or sub. But these days, it's all about economics and given that our military spending with this war in the mideast has been through the roof, I don't think Congress would have approved funding to design a P-3 prop replacement from scratch. So converting a proven civilian plane like the 737 for sub hunting made more sense.

My mistake, the ATR is an Italian and French company, not Spanish.

Last edited by joshuatree; January 4th, 2007 at 03:16 PM. Reason: ATR correction
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old January 4th, 2007, 05:52 PM
buzz1941's Avatar
buzz1941 buzz1941 is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,086
Default Re: Navy P-8A

Quote:
Originally Posted by joshuatree View Post
I still think a turboprop is better suited to loitering over open areas for extended periods but these days
I think it has a lot to do with maintenance training. The Navy would rather focus on one type of engine.
__________________
Burl Burlingame
"Art is never finished, only abandoned." -- Leonardo Da Vinci
honoluluagonizer.com
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old January 5th, 2007, 03:12 AM
GeckoGeek's Avatar
GeckoGeek GeckoGeek is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,043
Default Re: Navy P-8A

Quote:
Originally Posted by helen View Post
You mean the plane don't stall when the engines don't produce enough thrust to make the plane go fast enough to generate enough lift to overcome the drag on it.
You're talking about aerodynamic stall. The concern here is that if you throttle back the engines (because you need to go slow) the engine might die on you. Or maybe stated another way, they engines will throttle back ok, but they might not want to throttle back up. When you've only got two engines and flying low and slow and it's a really long swim back to home, things can get a little "exciting".


Quote:
Originally Posted by helen View Post
A touch and go landing would be the sort of thing a cargo plane would use to deliver cargo in a combat situation.
I know what you're talking about, but I don't think that's called a touch and go. Some of the most difficult and dangerous part of flying is the take-off and landing. A touch an go is both. They land, and then throttle up and take off again. All pilots do it (well, except for glider pilots ). Even general aviation does it in the little piper cubs. First weekend of the month, you can watch the military do touch and go at KMCAS. I've also watched them do it a Hilo airport.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old January 5th, 2007, 03:17 AM
GeckoGeek's Avatar
GeckoGeek GeckoGeek is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,043
Default Re: Navy P-8A

Quote:
Originally Posted by buzz1941 View Post
Maybe you remember that one did it without deploying the gear. Prang-g-g-g-g!!!!
No, but I remember the one that crossed Kauai about 10' too low. (splat!)
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old January 5th, 2007, 03:19 AM
GeckoGeek's Avatar
GeckoGeek GeckoGeek is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,043
Default Re: Navy P-8A

Quote:
Originally Posted by joshuatree View Post
I would think slower and better loitering time makes more sense for a sub hunter since a turboprop will still outrun any ship or sub.
I'd think so too. I noticed in the specs that the P8 can get on station faster but it can't stay on-station as long. That seem rather telling.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old January 5th, 2007, 05:01 AM
buzz1941's Avatar
buzz1941 buzz1941 is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,086
Default Re: Navy P-8A

Quote:
Originally Posted by helen View Post
A touch and go landing would be the sort of thing a cargo plane would use to deliver cargo in a combat situation.
I think you mean a LAPEs drop -- Low Altitude Parachute Extraction. Basically, a parachute yanks a cargo pallet out the back of a plane like a C-130.
__________________
Burl Burlingame
"Art is never finished, only abandoned." -- Leonardo Da Vinci
honoluluagonizer.com
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old January 9th, 2007, 11:24 PM
Miulang Miulang is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,759
Default Re: Navy P-8A

Its official name is now the P-8A Poseidon. Its predecessors were the Neptune and the Orion. Apparently the Navy likes Greek mythology.

Miulang
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old January 10th, 2007, 03:35 AM
GeckoGeek's Avatar
GeckoGeek GeckoGeek is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,043
Default Re: Navy P-8A

Poseidon. Wasn't that one of the original disaster movies?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old January 10th, 2007, 03:28 PM
craigwatanabe's Avatar
craigwatanabe craigwatanabe is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Oahu now part of the traffic problem in lower Puna
Posts: 8,415
Default Re: Navy P-8A

Quote:
Originally Posted by lavagal View Post
I for one think this is pretty terrific; I'm a military jet junky and have flown in just about everything but a fighter and even got to work on the Stealth and the Shuttle while at Edwards AFB in the Mojave--as a computer operator on the ground grunt! My chances of flying in a fighter are probably nil since I'm a mom now!

But I am CERTAIN that Buzz1941 will have something to say about the P-8As.
I was the tech of the month at my airbase so I got the chance to ride the F-111 and we did break mach on the deck. Amazing experience when you pass the speed of sound, suddenly the roar of the engines quiet down and all you hear is the sound of the radio's and your breathing.

Then there was the barrel roll and the 3-g climb then the inverted dive and lunch

I think we popped a few rivets on the fuselage coming outta that dive.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old January 10th, 2007, 03:48 PM
joshuatree joshuatree is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,824
Default Re: Navy P-8A

Quote:
Originally Posted by craigwatanabe View Post
I was the tech of the month at my airbase so I got the chance to ride the F-111 and we did break mach on the deck. Amazing experience when you pass the speed of sound, suddenly the roar of the engines quiet down and all you hear is the sound of the radio's and your breathing.

Then there was the barrel roll and the 3-g climb then the inverted dive and lunch

I think we popped a few rivets on the fuselage coming outta that dive.
F-111? Wasn't that a while ago? Or do you mean riding in one of the RAAF's F-111s? I think they are the last major air force to still have them on active status though they are desperately looking for their replacements in the F35 project.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old January 10th, 2007, 04:14 PM
craigwatanabe's Avatar
craigwatanabe craigwatanabe is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Oahu now part of the traffic problem in lower Puna
Posts: 8,415
Default Re: Navy P-8A

Quote:
Originally Posted by joshuatree View Post
F-111? Wasn't that a while ago? Or do you mean riding in one of the RAAF's F-111s? I think they are the last major air force to still have them on active status though they are desperately looking for their replacements in the F35 project.
Actually the plane I rode and the RAAF's were one in the same. I worked on the Avionics package of the F-111A (carrier model) back in the late 70's early 80's. We had three AGS (Aircraft Generation Squadron) squadrons in our 367th Tactical Fighter Wing.

There was the Red, Blue and Yellow squadrons. When the Aussies came knocking on our door to buy some Aardvarks we sold them most of our Yellow Squadron's birds as they were mostly hanger queens (down for maintenance).

I had the opportunity to ride a yellow squadron bird and at first was quite hesitant on taking the offer as this plane suffered more crashes during peacetime than during the entire Vietnam war and the yellow birds were the least reliable so you could sense my apprehension. Plus we had on average one crash per year at our base, all of them yellow squadron.

But it was the ride of a lifetime and not too many people can boast that so I wen chance em!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old January 10th, 2007, 04:22 PM
joshuatree joshuatree is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,824
Default Re: Navy P-8A

Quote:
Originally Posted by craigwatanabe View Post
Actually the plane I rode and the RAAF's were one in the same. I worked on the Avionics package of the F-111A (carrier model) back in the late 70's early 80's. We had three AGS (Aircraft Generation Squadron) squadrons in our 367th Tactical Fighter Wing.

There was the Red, Blue and Yellow squadrons. When the Aussies came knocking on our door to buy some Aardvarks we sold them most of our Yellow Squadron's birds as they were mostly hanger queens (down for maintenance).

I had the opportunity to ride a yellow squadron bird and at first was quite hesitant on taking the offer as this plane suffered more crashes during peacetime than during the entire Vietnam war and the yellow birds were the least reliable so you could sense my apprehension. Plus we had on average one crash per year at our base, all of them yellow squadron.

But it was the ride of a lifetime and not too many people can boast that so I wen chance em!
True, when you are offered the chance to break the sound barrier, it's a risk worth taking.

I heard whatever F-111s we have sitting out in the desert have pretty much been cannibalized for spare parts by the RAAF.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old January 10th, 2007, 04:42 PM
craigwatanabe's Avatar
craigwatanabe craigwatanabe is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Oahu now part of the traffic problem in lower Puna
Posts: 8,415
Default Re: Navy P-8A

Quote:
Originally Posted by joshuatree View Post
True, when you are offered the chance to break the sound barrier, it's a risk worth taking.

I heard whatever F-111s we have sitting out in the desert have pretty much been cannibalized for spare parts by the RAAF.
The F-111 aircraft was a remarkable plane and until the twin seater F-15 Strike Eagle came out there was no other plane than the FB-111A that could run a mission like an Aardvark. The F-111 came out from A thru H with the H model having the most sophisticated avionics until the F-15 took it's place.

Those A models that weren't sold to the Aussies were converted to the EF-111A Raven which was the stealth prototype using the ALQ-99 ECM radar jamming pod. The Ravens were used during the Gulf War to blind Iraqi radar sites and allowed the USAF to destroy Iraqi forward surveillance capability.

The F-111's were also used in the raid on Libya as it was the only plane that could hit supersonic and fly under the radar net.

The B1 Bomber was supposed to replace the F-111 but President Carter slashed the B1 funds and the plane was downgraded to subsonic speeds making that plane a useless hunk of tactical and strategic junk.

But hey this is all about the Navy P8 right?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old January 10th, 2007, 05:00 PM
joshuatree joshuatree is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,824
Default Re: Navy P-8A

Ok, going back to P8, still not so sure how well this model will perform considering it's a heavier plane and it's jet, so it may get to the battlefield sooner but loitering time probably is shortchanged. I still think it has a lot to do with politics since Boeing pushed hard on their 737 MMA project and the Australians ordered 6 737 wedgetails, guess the next gen surveillance/reconnaisance planes. But in those roles, a jet plane makes sense. A sub-hunter/maritime patrol? Dunno......

Wonder if airships can ever make a comeback in those areas? An airship can loiter for a very long time hehe.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
aircraft, jets, navy

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

  Partner Sites: Hawaii Blog Hawaii News Hawaii Grinds Hawaii Social Media  
    Blogging the Aloha State. The Hawaii Star. Hawaii Food Blog. The story of Aloha 2.0.