Almansur Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Pretty neat bird! http://www.flickr.com/photos/usnavy/6836386475/sizes/o/in/photostream/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butters Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Boeing. Fuck yea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JarheadBoom Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Looking forward to seeing them in the ARO window... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrainerModel Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 guess they wanted a bigger P-3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKopack Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I spent several years working the P-3's at the Lockheed Martin depot a decade ago, even then the Orions were tired. Probably half of the aircraft that we brought in had major wing spar cracking, fore and aft, we were seeing more and more wing plank cracking around the nacelles, and it had gotten to the point where we could no longer remove all of the corrosion from the aircraft structure because guys were grinding straight through. Great aircraft, fast and powerful (loved doing engine runs on them), but they've suffered from a lot of flying through the salt spray down on the deck over the water (MAD runs, etc.). It'll be interesting to see in the future how the "thin walled" P-8 / 737 fares flying in the same conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzdude Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Great aircraft, fast and powerful (loved doing engine runs on them), but they've suffered from a lot of flying through the salt spray down on the deck over the water (MAD runs, etc.). It'll be interesting to see in the future how the "thin walled" P-8 / 737 fares flying in the same conditions. My understanding is with the advances in ASW tech that the P8 would be able to operate higher than the P3s did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Champ Kind Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 My understanding is with the advances in ASW tech that the P8 would be able to operate higher than the P3s did. Boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majestik Møøse Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Boring. Used to be fun; now boring. This trend pretty much applies to every plane in the military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butters Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Used to be fun; now boring. This trend pretty much applies to every plane in the military. Not the C-17. We get to go off-roading now and again. BTW: The Army now refers to any ditch as a C-17 arresting device. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BQZip01 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Not the C-17. We get to go off-roading now and again. BTW: The Army now refers to any ditch as a C-17 arresting device. I suppose holes cut in runways are MC-130 arresting devices too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clayton Bigsby Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 My understanding is with the advances in ASW tech that the P8 would be able to operate higher than the P3s did. Exactly. USN models of the P-8 won't even have a MAD; India's P-8I's do though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco130 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Not the C-17. We get to go off-roading now and again. Promptly followed by LZ closure due to rutting.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbar Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 The AF ought to think about buying some P-8s. Strip off (sts) the ASW gear, hang some JDAMs, etc. on it, put a decent IMINT and SIGINT package in it (sts), and maybe some comm jamming equipment and you'd have a great airplane for the current unpleasantries in Afghanistan, the Philippines, etc.. Could hang out for hours providing the kinds of support needed at a fraction of the cost of B-1s or F-15Es (minus the strafing). Save those airframes for the big fight. Maybe you could have a couple of squadrons in AFSOC... For higher end scenarios maybe they could supplement ISR assets or be JSSAM/MALD trucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindsight2020 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 The AF ought to think about buying some P-8s. Strip off (sts) the ASW gear, hang some JDAMs, etc. on it, put a decent IMINT and SIGINT package in it (sts), and maybe some comm jamming equipment and you'd have a great airplane for the current unpleasantries in Afghanistan, the Philippines, etc.. Could hang out for hours providing the kinds of support needed at a fraction of the cost of B-1s or F-15Es (minus the strafing). Save those airframes for the big fight. Maybe you could have a couple of squadrons in AFSOC... For higher end scenarios maybe they could supplement ISR assets or be JSSAM/MALD trucks. Fvck, up the ante, bring in some seven-fives and cut a bomb bay on em, and you got yourself the EB-52 that never was. Standoff jammer: check. Bomb truck permissive environment boring circles in the sky sipping on fumes: check. Knowing the mil-industrial complex though, touching up even a commercially based product would sprout up cost overruns in the civilian parasite contractor machine like weeds on a rainy Texas summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Noonin Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 bring in some seven-fives and cut a bomb bay on em, and you got yourself the EB-52 that never was. Standoff jammer: check. Not quite. What made the EB-52 such a badass was that it had 8 motors, therefore 8 generators and could generate a ridiculous 1.21 jigawatts of pure American-made trons. Believe it or not, 757s don't have a lot of spare power available for that kind of stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prozac Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 1.21 jigawatts of pure American-made trons. Cross cockpit check at 88mph during takeoff roll? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JarheadBoom Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Cross cockpit check at 88mph during takeoff roll? Takeoff roll? Where we're going, we don't need a takeoff roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco_Nav963 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Not quite. What made the EB-52 such a badass was that it had 8 motors, therefore 8 generators and could generate a ridiculous 1.21 jigawatts of pure American-made trons. Believe it or not, 757s don't have a lot of spare power available for that kind of stuff. Always thought it was funny that the E-3 had 4 TF-33s and 8 generators, and was limited to 24 hour durations due to engine oil life... And the (non-E)B-52H has 8 TF-33s, only 4 generators, and has historically flown significantly longer than 24 hours, which is a principle I apply on the ground to the whole 3,000 miles/3 months myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now