Boeing’s Poseidon, 737’s ‘lethal twin,’ moves ahead

Wichita Business Journal ^ | 1/15/2010 | Wichita Business Journal

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

Boeing Co. said it’s completed a series of tests of its new P-8A Poseidon anti-submarine airplane in Seattle, with tests being described as “a major milestone.”

The U.S. Navy is slated to buy 117 of the maritime and patrol aircraft, which are derived from a 737 fuselage. Spirit AeroSystems Inc. in Wichita makes most of the 737 airframe. The P-8A aircraft contains sophisticated detection equipment and weaponry that are designed to find and sink submarines that could threaten aircraft carriers. The complete P-8A program will be worth more than $40 billion.

The airplane that Boeing tested in Seattle was subjected to a variety of vibration tests with 18 different weapons configurations loaded onto the plane.

“T1 responded as predicted throughout the rigorous set of tests. This is a major milestone for the team and paves the way for in-flight testing and verification of the P-8A’s weapons capabilities,” said Chuck Dabundo, Boeing vice president and P-8 program manager, in a statement.

The P-8A, called the 737’s “lethal twin,” was rolled out for the first time in Renton last July.

[A.A. Cunningham]

I guess this is an Air Force aircraft since it isn’t carrier capable.

Wrong. P-3s, C-9s, C-40s, C-20s and E-6s aren't carrier capable either. Not every plane flown by the Navy is carrier capable.

[Vroomfondel]

ping

[magslinger]

SONOBUOY PING!

Click on pic for past Navair pings.

Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.

[Ronin]

The Navy has a number of aircraft that are not carrier capable. P-3s certainly aren’t. Never have been.

I wasn’t aware that the P-8 was built on the 737 airframe. It’s never been one of my favorite birds although there are a lot of them out there. Do not like the way the thrust reversers work.

[DesScorp]

After much consideration, I think that the long range land-based patrol mission should be USAF’s job. We’ve got too much duplication of abilities among the services. If it can’t take off or land from a ship or the surface of the water, then they Navy shouldn’t have it. If it’s land based, it should belong to USAF. Let the blues do long ranged stuff with planes like the 737 or 767. I’ve always thought the C-2 Greyhound would be the perfect airplane to adapt for the carrier-launched ASW mission.

[Lokibob]

My only concern with what you say is the nagging queston of emphasis of effort. Would the USAF be as quick to protect the carrier fleet as they would to say protect one of their own bases?

I am certainly Not saying that the USAF would delibretly put any friendly forces in danger, but if it came to having to make a decision between AF assets and Navy assets, where would their instincts go?

I can tell you this much, I am glad I am not making these decisions.

.....Bob

[GonzoGOP]

We’ve got too much duplication of abilities among the services.

No duplication of services. The air force doesn't do maritime patrol. After all sub hunting is a combined sport between surface ships, long range maritime patrol, and friendly submarines. It is easier to have one service handle all the parts of the equation. And the fear of the AF shooting our own subs is a good part of the issue. During WWII the USAAC sunk several of the navy's subs, each with its entire crew.

The Navy was once forbidden by congressional law from doing patrols along the US coast because that was an Army Air Corps job. Unfortunately the air force was a bit lax in their patrolling one Sunday morning and the Navy found half their fleet at the bottom of a Pearl Harbor. Since then the Navy has been very clear that they will take care of maritime patrol, since it is their rear ends on the line if it isn't done properly.

[pabianice]

http://navlog.org/obama_cuts.html

[MHalblaub]

Another by Boeing instead of by best available product - Nimrod MRA4.

[W. W. SMITH]

let me add to that.

Visit an AF base and you can hear “ that's not my job” quietly echoing from every corner of the base.

Aboard a navy command, say that more than twice in a twenty year time span and you will find your but on the sidewalk out side the main gate and they won't let you back in.

Also back approx 35 years, an AF general sat in front of a Congressional committee and said they where unable to provide any maritime support of any kind. Maybe some more of “not my job”?

[Non-Sequitur]

I guess this is an Air Force aircraft since it isn’t carrier capable. On second thought, I am not sure the Navy would like carrier security to be handled by the Air Force. I know the USN has refuelers, but are they large enough to handle their basic load of fighters and a 737? Sorry, just thinking out loud before doing the research to get the answers....

ASW has always been a navy task. This is supposed to replace the P-3 already in service.

[Non-Sequitur]

How do 737s get from KS to WA?

Train.