P-8 Poseidon

[jimderfuhrer]

The Canadian government planing acquired some new fast patrol/electronic warfare and anti-submarines system ,and one of the possibility is the new P-8 Poseidon (Introduced in 2012). The P-8 Poseidon isn't yet ready in 2009 planing his first flight and will be delivred in U.S forces in 2012. But the first detail of this aircraft are awesome little comparison ( theory )

P-8:
- Max speed : 907 km/h
- Cruise speed: 815 km/h
- Maximum load : 85,370 kg
- Armement : Joint missiles, Mines and Torpedoes  (Unofficial)

P-3 (CP-140):
- Max speed : 750 km/h
- Cruise speed : 610 km/h
- Maximum load : 64,400 kg
- Armement :   
Mk 46 Mod V torpedoes, signal chargers, smoke markers, illumination flares
air-to-surface missiles or conventional bombs can be fitted after a retrofit.
Sonobuoys, Radar, Electro-Optical/Infrared (EO/IR) suite, Magnetic anomaly detector (MAD), Electronic Support Measures (ESM), fixed 70 mm camera, hand-held digital camera, gyro-stabilized binoculars.

But isn't for today ,Canada in 1998 modernized his fleet for electronic warfare , so they still in Canadian fleet for long times (retired in 2012-2015).

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I would be more interested in loitre time..how long the MPA can stay on task.

 

[Astrodog]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't turbofans inherently less efficient at low altitudes, where a good chunk of the MP mission takes places? Curious as to how that plays into the P-8.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't turbofans inherently less efficient at low altitudes, where a good chunk of the MP mission takes places? Curious as to how that plays into the P-8.

Well hopefully our experts will be along to correct our errors.

 

[aesop081]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't turbofans inherently less efficient at low altitudes, where a good chunk of the MP mission takes places? Curious as to how that plays into the P-8.

Concept of operations for the P-8 is a departure from what is being done now.

 

[midget-boyd91]

I'm wondering about the hangars in Comox and Greenwood. Would they be big enough for these birds, or would new hangars have to be an added cost?

Midget

 

[Long in the tooth]

Interesting, the Air Force wanted turbo props but when the specifications went for bid the Poseiden met them.  Unintended consequences.  Just like in the legal system - don't ask the question unless you already know the answer.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

One of the companies just released a glider anti-sub torpedo, with a launch to target range of 10 miles, which might help reduce low flying bit for ASW. However that does not resolve the issue of finding the target in the first place. Not to mention low flying and target ID for sovereignty, fisheries and pollution patrols is a very big part of what the Aurora does when not hunting for subs.

 

[ammocat]

I know nothing about ASW, however the Fish Hank (Mk 54 torpedo fitted with the Longshot wing adapter) seems like a good idea and has some advantages, less aircraft fuel consumption, airframe stress, and protection from anti-aircraft weapons systems. Being able to deploy a weapon system from a higher altitude would be a benefit, but with the increase in altitude would the be any negative effects on accurate target acquisition?

It is difficult to find specific information on the torpedoes, the tests were conducted on a Mk 54 and I cannot find anything that would indicate that the Longshot can be adapted to the Mk 46 (also can't find anything that says it can't). An upgrade in torpedoes may be required if this aircraft comes into service and tactics are changed to allow for high altitude drops.

 

[Zoomie]

I'm wondering about the hangars in Comox and Greenwood.

The CP-140 Hangars in YQQ are long past due to be replaced. A non-event anyways, we won't be getting any new MPAs in the next quarter century.

 

[DerKaiser]

The P-8 isn't the first who use the Jet engine , the british airforces/navy use since 1969 a jet engine for anti-submarines called "MRA4 Nimrod" is a very cheap aircraft comparate the new version of the CP-140 (modernized in 1998) but still a jet engine. Many another veriant :
- KHI ( Kawasaki)  P-X  Project(Japan)
- MRA4 Nimrod (U.K)
- Boeing P-8A Poseidon Project (U.S.A)
- EADS  MPA320 / MPA319 (Germany)

 

[aesop081]

the british airforces/navy use since 1969 a jet engine for anti-submarines called "MRA4 Nimrod"

They have not been using the MRA4 since 1969. In fact, the MRA4 has yet to reach operational service. The current operational model is the Nimrod MR.2


I dont care if you gave yourself a new name.........the facts please.

 

[DerKaiser]

Whoops you have right , but they still used a jet engine since 1969.

 

[aesop081]

Whoops you have right , but they still used a jet engine since 1969.

Anyways, i'm still waiting for you to  tell me about the CP-140 and what it can do.

 

[DerKaiser]

Anyways, i'm still waiting for you to  tell me about the CP-140 and what it can do.

What do you mean?

 

[aesop081]

What do you mean?

You posted this :

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/69452/post-763037.html#msg763037

So i later on asked you to tell me about the CP-140

I'm also waiting for you to provide proof that HMCS Chicoutimi sank

 

[belka]

I'm also waiting for you to provide proof that HMCS Chicoutimi sank

Everyone knows that HMCS Chicoutimi is at the bottom of Lake Winnipeg.

Don't see how the P-8's engines being turbofans have anything to do with low-level flight.

 

[dimsum]

Don't see how the P-8's engines being turbofans have anything to do with low-level flight.

Up to a certain altitude and speed, turbofans are actually less efficient than props. 

 

[belka]

I would think that turbofans and turboshafts have practically the same efficiency range just the torque output is higher with the turboshafts at lower altitudes. Unless we are talking about different things here.

 

[dimsum]

Wait, Turbofans and Turboshafts (as in helicopters) or Turbofans and Turboprops (as in the Auroras)?  If you mean turboprops, then what I say holds.  If not, never mind