Boeing P-8A Poseidon (737-800EFV) MMA (Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft)

TomS said:
Once upon a time there was a formal requirement for an EP-3 replacement, called EP-X. Boeing was clearly the front-runner with a 737 derivative similar to the P-8, but Airbus and Embraer both had proposals. EP-X got "cancelled" back in 2011, but it looks like it essentially got done via the backdoor with aircraft modifications rather than new builds.
Click to expand...
I mean, if the P-8 has the spare weight and power to haul the ELINT package you might as well stick one or two converted EP-8s into each squadron.

TomcatViP said:
There is a bit of JSTAR there also ;)
Click to expand...
I thought the JSTAR radar was too close to the ground under a 737, and was having issues with reflections off the engines?
 
Scott Kenny said:
I thought the JSTAR radar was too close to the ground under a 737, and was having issues with reflections off the engines?
Click to expand...

I think he’s referring to the large belly AESA radar seen on some P-3s and P-8s. It is apparently a ground surveillance radar with several relevant modes. I think it used to be labeled “littoral surveillance radar” or something like that.
 
FighterJock said:
Would that also mean that the RAF P-8s will also be getting this upgrade as well?
Click to expand...
From what I can find it's definitely increment 3 but nothing about blocks. RAAF is being upgraded to block 2. So on the basis that the UK hasn't received them yet, I'd hedge on saying that it will likely be block 2 at this stage.
 
The RAF needs to spend big time on defence we should upgrade the P-8s to the block 2 standard to keep up with the rest of the countries that have the P-8s. But that is down to the UK MOD and the RAF ultimately.
 
FighterJock said:
The RAF needs to spend big time on defence we should upgrade the P-8s to the block 2 standard to keep up with the rest of the countries that have the P-8s. But that is down to the UK MOD and the RAF ultimately.
Click to expand...
Hopefully they have learned from their Sentry and Sentinel stupidity. But I doubt that.

Chris
 
Scott Kenny said:
The single greatest threat to HMArmed Forces is HMTreasury.
Click to expand...
That was always the case, but this lot appear to be particularly dense. I attended an RAFHS seminar last week. I never thought I'd ever hear retired (and I must emphasise retired) senior forces offices slag off a Tory government.

I'll get me coat.

Chris
 
Especially when it has nothing to do with the Government, it is after all HM Treasury that pull the strings.
 
Will that ultimately mean that the RC-135 SIGINT aircraft be getting replaced in the future with this update for the P-8? Or just compliment the RC-135s?
 
I'm just wondering how many P-8s will get this (surely the whole fleet isn't getting this refit). There are 10 EP-3s, but a 1:1 replacement is going to blow an uncomfortably large hole in the ASW fleet that already seems rather small.
 
TomS said:
I'm just wondering how many P-8s will get this (surely the whole fleet isn't getting this refit). There are 10 EP-3s, but a 1:1 replacement is going to blow an uncomfortably large hole in the ASW fleet that already seems rather small.
Click to expand...
Why not buy 10x EP-8s on top of all the ASW P-8s?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Why not buy 10x EP-8s on top of all the ASW P-8s?
Click to expand...

That would obviously have been ideal, but the USN hasn't placed additional P-8 orders for itself in several years and has not requested them, as far as I know.

Buying the ELINT kit as a retrofit to ASW P-8s probably also lets them end-run the requirement for a new competition (a la EP-X) that might end up specifying a new airframe.

You can read about the sordid history of the 2008-10 Navy EP-X here:


And

 
Last edited by a moderator:
@TomS : Yes, I read that piece already but couldn´t see any details regarding that question. See how the geometry and black vulcanized joint could make it retractable upward.
 
TomcatViP said:
Do we know if the pod is retractable?
Click to expand...
In what sense?
That it can extend downwards from the photographed position to better clear the engines, but would drag on the ground if the pod was that far down all the time? Possibly.
That it can retract further upwards? unlikely. The pod looks like it is as deep as it possibly can be without getting friendly with the runway.
 
TomcatViP said:
@TomS : Yes, I read that piece already but couldn´t see any details regarding that question. See how the geometry and black vulcanized joint could make it retractable upward.
Click to expand...

There's no where for it to retract into. There are auxiliary fuel tanks in the lower cargo bay above where the pod is mounted.
 
TomS said:
There's no where for it to retract into. There are auxiliary fuel tanks in the lower cargo bay above where the pod is mounted.
Click to expand...
There's about 18" of depth between the fuselage skin and the cargo floor.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom