Posted on 06/14/2004 2:07:09 PM PDT by avg_freeper
With less sweepback on the wings, the Nimrod trades off maybe 25 kts transit speed for better low speed handling. (Which is more important?)
Plus 4 engines. Can patrol with 2 burning, one just rolling over, one shut dwown.
The 130 is a great aircraft, no doubt one of the best cargo aircraft in the world, ever. It was investigated for the ASW role back in the '50s alongside the Lockheed Electra (which became the P-3). It was found too cumbersome and clumsy for the role. P-3's were lighter and had better handling, and had plenty of room inside for electronics to boot.
"State it. German subs, almost as good as nucs. The qualifying word is "almost"."
Think of it like this...these subs are as quiet as a flashlight (they too run on batteries underwater). They can be purchased for what amounts to ten for the price of one SEAWOLF or LAI or VIRGINIA. Are they AS good? No, but they can do something the others cannot...they can be in ten places at once.
China, for example, is willing to lose ten subs just to sink one carrier, and they know that the odds favor them. If they're really lucky, they might even get an LA. They are using a version of the Russian "Cavitating" torpedo that can reach speeds of 300 knots. They are every bit the threat that a nuke can be. Recall the damage the German U-boats (diesels all) did during WWII, or the fact that U-boat attacks brought us into the First World War. Subs do not have to be $3 billion and run on neutrons to be dangerous to the free movement of ships and cargo.
Plus, they can and are being bought by countries like Iran (KILO class), Indonesia (German type 209), Argentina (German type 1700), Chile (German type 209), Turkey (German type 209), Israel(German type 540), and a host of others. When AIP becomes available, those third-world nations will have technology that can match the advantages of a nuke. They'll have it for a LOT less money, too.
Oh, and you asked about ballistic missiles on diesels? The GOLF-class owned and operated by North Korea is an SSB, or Diesel Ballistic Missile Submarine. Now, why would they have bought that?
"By the way, how many of these subs have been constructed and who bought them? You seem to know everything, answer me that(suggest Jane's), SPORT."
I don't have a JANE's here right now, but my most recent course of study claimed that the Germans had manufactured almost a hundred of their 205, 206, 207, 209, 210, and 540 types. The French have put out about 20-30 DAPHNEs and AGOSTAs. As for the Russians, they have exported, and use themselves, about 30 KILOs. Some of these could be wrong, as I said, I don't have the reference available right here. However, there are certainly over 150 highly capable submarines out there, built with the latest technology available. And they do not belong to us. As far as what say our own government has over the German and other foreign sales, sadly not all that much. They are, after all, foreign countries with their own laws on weapons sales. The Russians couldn't care less what we think.
And by the way (and I say this with the highest repect possible), it was you, not me, who came on this thread with an attitude. You made statements which were, to someone experienced otherwise, ignorant of the facts. It would've been as if I had come on to a thread about the Viet Nam war huffing and puffing about stuff all wrong. You'd have rightly gotten your dander up, too.
The fact is, our country faces a myriad of threats to our safety and economy, to say nothing of our ability to wage war overseas. The threat of submarines not only remains, but is even more dangerous, as we no longer have only ONE enemy to worry about...we now have to watch them ALL, and guess what? A certain recent President from Arkansas chopped out six of our active squadrons. As the birds age, more will either be decommissioned or will have to be replaced with new airplanes.
And I haven't even mentioned all our OTHER missions yet. ASW is only one small part of our mission.
Looks like I'll have to learn a whole new NATOPS, though. As for the "argument", well, let's call it an education in progress. One which began with rancor, unfortunately. Your input would be appreciated, of course.
Learned much from your knowledge of contemporary submarine design and operation, but (you knew there had to be a but) regardless of the type of submarine, nuc, diesel, mini etc. do we need an aircraft outside present inventory, at enormous cost, to accomplish the mission? You state that the C-130 is too clumsy and cumbersome for the job. Well those C-130 gunship crews in Iraq might not agree with you, or am I arguing apples and oranges? You say that the Chinese might be willing to sacrifice ten subs for one target, maybe they're willing to go 100 to one, what then? Nation-states, those with subs, we can deal with in a conventional manner, and they know it. I worry more about the 9/11 types that can take out a tanker or a city with minimal resources, got to stay with the clear and present danger, but thats another subject.
>>> we couldn't restart #1 engine one night and ended up back at Cubi Pt. with 14.7 hrs. <<<<
Mmm. OK. It's amazing how the PI can make aircraft go down ;-)
>>> maybe they're willing to go 100 to one, what then? <<<
Crank the knob up to "Well Done" LOL
It's a AO thing
After reading all the releases on this. This thing will be a DOG. There's no way this will replace what the P-3 can do!
Instead wasting money on this. Buy some new P-3s or give you guys a raise.
The first clue is there calling it MMA Remember how the F-111 back in the 60s started.
It's already known how jets perform on ASW craft. there call S-3's
Why didn't you young whippersnappers take better care of the aircraft we gave you! When I think of all the times I had to swab the decks and polish the Bomb Bays clean the hot section. And then read
>>>> but when you climb aboard and all you can smell on the bird is pi$$, vomit, hydro fluid, and kerosene <<<<<
Why it just pines me ;-)
When I was in. There were still a lot of A's & B's still flying every bit as old as C III's are now. And there was not all this talk of doom.
And on top of that! All the B SS I & II gayW's with there dumb Aircraft could whip all the C's with all there fancy computers in finding subs!
Have you read the book
Adak: The Rescue of Alfa Foxtrot 586
http://www.vpnavy.com./vp9586.html
Just finished it. A good read
The Author CAPTAIN Jampoler was my Squadron CO And VP-9 was our sister Squadron.
It's getting late here time to log out for the night.
Fair question. In the first place, the $9b they're talking about for MMA is, in current DOD terms, really cheap. Hell, the new F-22 fighter goes for over $100 million EACH! The B-2 is about $1.5 billion EACH (there's around 20). We're talking about $9 billion for a hundred aircraft. That's a deal.
And like I said, it IS necessary. We are a marritime nation, with an economy which makes exrensive use of the sealanes, as well as a military that does, too. Our troops, tanks, cannons, and materiel are still mostly shipped across the seas. Over the past 60 years, we have found that having a dedicated long-range patrol and reconnaisance aircraft capable of both ASW and other sea- and land- patrol and surveillance missions to be an invaluable resource in maintaining that free access to the seas that we depend on.
The P-3 is over 40 years old, and those flying right now are getting to the point of being both uneconomical and unsafe. The man-hours spent on them for maintinence vs. flight are horrendous, and most of the spare parts inventory has dried up. Currently, about one aircraft every couple of months is transferred to the bone yard because it reaches its absolute design limit of hours...you just cannot keep "restoring" these things forever. We can either get new aircraft, ones which carry the latest in technology, engineering, and electronics, now while we can; or wait until the inevitable crash of an ORION and the death of a crew due to aging and mechanical failure occurs. Personally, I love the old girl too much to see her have to be retired in dishonor like that. She's served well; now it is time to let her leave with dignity.
"Well those C-130 gunship crews in Iraq might not agree with you, or am I arguing apples and oranges?"
Sort of, yes. The mission profiles and flight requirements are completely different.
Our manuevers place a TON of stress on our wings and frame (one reason among many why they are getting so worn), and we also commonly operate in flight regimes that AC-130's do not. We run 8+ hour missions at 300 feet AGL, for instance, getting beaten up bu turbulence the whole time. We have to crank the plane around almost on dimes for sub tracking and attack, not to mention the high-G (for a turboprop!) work necessary for shore attack and missile firings. AC-130's work much higher, and do not commonly push their birds like we do. I wish sometimes we had some of those guns, though...
As for cargo 130's, they fly from A to B at high altitude...and that's it for the most part. They do fun stuff like parachute drops on occaision, though. Just not often, which is how they stay around for years.
Different missions altogether.
"You say that the Chinese might be willing to sacrifice ten subs for one target, maybe they're willing to go 100 to one, what then? Nation-states, those with subs, we can deal with in a conventional manner, and they know it. I worry more about the 9/11 types that can take out a tanker or a city with minimal resources,"
Fair enough. However, when they do attack us, we usually need to hit back, and that means getting troops, planes, supplies, tanks, and ammo across the oceans. It means putting carriers off someone's coasts. Those ships need to be protected. Terrorists smuggle more than men, too...they smuggle weapons. Someone has to keep eyes on all the merchant shipping that runs around those hotspots, and keep a lookout for those that are nefarious.
Finally, even though we are NOW in a war against terrorists, this will not preclude a conventional war sometime in the future with a nation state. We cannot afford to lose even ONE carrier...the damage to American morale would be devastating.
Marritime patrol aviation works to prevent all of that. We can't let some cheap sub with a bit of luck take out a $4 billion ship and 5,000 men because we didn't think it could. They are MADE to do just that, nowadays, as well as carry missiles and everything else a nuke does, just with less endurance. A carrier usually has itself, and maybe one friendly sub about, plus a destroyer or two in its BG. Do you really think that out of ten enemy subs, one or even two won't get lucky enough to cause serious hurt? I can guarantee you the carrier skippers do. Part of those pushing for the new aircraft for us are those very same people...they want their ships defended all the way 'round.
So, we won the Cold War. There is no submarine threat out there equivalent to the USSR at its height, true. That doesn't mean that the Chinese, Iranians etc. aren't doing their best to replicate that threat. Unfortunately, past experience shows that many times, the only thing that will make Americans focus on a threat is a disaster like Pearl Harbor or 9/11. Hopefully, we won't wait for a Chinese sub to park an anti-ship missile in one of our carriers before we start focusing on that threat.
A KILO lists for $300 million US, which sounds like a lot until you realize that we pay TEN times that for our subs, and that KILO can, in fact, take out a carrier or disrupt a shipping lane. Just think about what effect Iran's KILOs would have on the price of oil were they to begin sinking ships in the straights of Hormuz. That's just one example, too.
We needed an aircraft that not only could do the ASW mission as well as possible against the modern quiet threats, but also perform ALL of the other missions that the P-3 has picked up over the years. Not only can MMA do that, but it has room to grow even further, just as the P-3 did over its lifespan.
Maybe all three, I imagine there is some serious work going into stretching duration and I know it is a nightmare to try to maintain an aircraft as long as the P-3 would have to go. Even with a new airframe and upgrades to the P-3, the largely commercial 737 has to offer far lower lifetime cost.
ping
PING. Me old girl's retiring, and a new steed is on the way.
"With less sweepback on the wings..."
That's true enough. And the design is even older than the P3, going back, I believe, to the DH Comet. Interesting that the Comet was a flop as a commercial airliner, as was the Electra; one liked to disintegrate in midair and the other liked to vibrate its wings off. Yet, both have had great success in a military application. Still, I think the 737 variant will prove to be a good replacement over time.
I'll admit to being biased because the company I work for will probably get some work out of the Boeing deal
Bump
Glad to see you are getting a new plane!
(I forgot, the lamestream media reports the military never gets anything you need.)
The 737 MMA is "a quantum leap technologywise in the primary mission of this platform, which is anti-submarine warfare,"
The P3 Orion though a very reliable airplane, it has served the Navy for more than 30 years. The newest P3s were built in the 1980s. Lockheed would of used the same airframe, but
would of completely revamped inside parts.
The 737 can fly slow and low -- within 200 feet of water and at 200 mph. It meets or exceeds all Navy requirements.
It would be unthinkable to ask the next generation of Navy pilots to not move up to a jet, and make them continue to fly teh P3 airframe when it is 40, 50, and 60 years into it's airframe design.
now, now, now
i've spent hours looking at films of P3's in action taken with a Contraves Cine-Theodolite...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.