P-8 Poseidon

[jcf]

Am I they only one who has reservations about basically sending an AIRLINER to war? We could have built a both better and cheaper MMA by modifying and renovating Boneyard BUFFs... other than the love affair that the dip-ShipHighInTransit diplomats have with Commies, who especially hate and fear the B-52 by name.

Airliners are built to much tougher basic strength standards. They have to be
to meet the regulations, as the average airliner is used on a daily basis, day in
day out, year after year, warplanes are not.

The B-52 is way too narrow and has the wrong layout for the consoles and
operators that are the most important part of an MMA, aircraft in that
role are not 'bomb trucks', nor do they need to be.

If you were someone who had really studied or worked in aerospace, rather than
the occupant of your mum's basement, you'd know all that.

[upnorth]

Am I they only one who has reservations about basically sending an AIRLINER to war?

You quite likely may be the only one.

Airliners have been put into uniform and flown into harm's way and given stirling service since before the Second World War.

They've well proven themselves many times over in a multitude of military roles.

[Kerick]

Airliners have gone to war for generations starting (IIRC) with the DC-3/C-47, Lockheed Electra/Hudson, Beechcraft Model 18/C-45, up to the B737/T-43/C-40/P-8 and so many in between a guy could write a book on it. I think the idea is pretty well proven to work. The P-3, derived from the Lockheed L-188 Electra, and the C-135 family derived from the B707 have served for over 50 years. Hmmm.... this could make a good book! I'm sure I've missed a few, just way to many to list here.
Besides, this provides lots of whiff material.

[kitnut617]

and the C-135 family derived from the B707 have served for over 50 years.

I think you'll find in this case it's the other way around, but your point is well taken --

[Litvyak]

Besides, this provides lots of whiff material.

Yes! Like, off the top of my head, an Il-96-based AWACS, or a Tu-204 based replacement for the Il-38...

[jcf]

and the C-135 family derived from the B707 have served for over 50 years.

I think you'll find in this case it's the other way around, but your point is well taken --

The 707 and 717(C-135) were parallel developments from the private venture 367-80
proof of concept, it was not a matter of one being derived from the other.

BTW, Boeing does not prefix their model numbers with a 'B', that is an ICAO
identifier that has become regularly misapplied.

[PR19_Kit]

The 707 and 717(C-135) were parallel developments from the private venture 367-80
proof of concept, it was not a matter of one being derived from the other.

I still find it odd that one is around 6" wider than the other. I'd have thought standardisation would have been much more sensible, but perhaps the demands of 'fail safe' as opposed to 'safe life' were involved there.

[Diamondback]

Despite taking a hiatus from this forum, I'll pop back long enough to answer PR19's question. Per the folks who designed and built them, 717 (KC-135) is closer to the original 367-80 spec, while 707 was redesigned because the airlines wanted more room inside the cabin.

But WTF do I know, since I "live in Mum's basement" according to some, whose knowledge of other members' backgrounds MIGHT be enough to fill the head of a pin.

[jcf]

The original -80 is the same width as the Model 367/377 at 132 ", the Air Force asked for a 12 inch increase
in diameter to 144", Boeing did so and hoped the airlines would be happy with the same width, because by
doing so Boeing hoped to use the KC-135 tooling. The airlines weren't satisfied and after losing an order to
the still in development DC-8, Boeing bowed to the inevitable and added another four inches to the cabin
giving the 707 width of 148".

per Pete Bowers', Boeing Aircraft since 1916, 1993 edition and other sources.



Dear T***y,
The Shadow knows. 

[Talos]

If I remember correctly, it was the president of Pan-Am lobbying Boeing to match the DC-8's diameter. The reason for the increase was 148" wide gave room for a single aisle and three seats on each side, instead of only two seats on one side. That's a rather substantial increase in passengers.

[Rickshaw]

If you were someone who had really studied or worked in aerospace, rather than
the occupant of your mum's basement, you'd know all that.

Was that really called for?  Diamondback's own comments were bad enough, now you're just adding further heat, Jon.  Greg has admonished him, there is no need to carry it further into personal attacks. 

Diamondback, you do realise  the world has moved on since the end of the Cold War?  This isn't a political forum, so perhaps you should think about that before posting?   We don't all share the same viewpoint on politics and your comments were unwarranted.

[jcf]

Full-rate production contract:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/26/us-boeing-poseidon-idUSBREA1O1XY20140226

[kitnut617]

How come 16 aircraft will only cost the USN $2.1 billion, whereas the 8 for Australia will cost $3.6 billion

[Volkodav]

Overheads including maintenance equipment, tools, spares, training facilities and systems (including simulators).  Basically all the costs that arise when introducing a new type into service, the USN has already paid these costs so follow batches pretty much only need to cover the aircraft.

[PR19_Kit]

Full-rate production contract:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/26/us-boeing-poseidon-idUSBREA1O1XY20140226

'Spy planes'.....? 

[jcf]

Reuters needs writers. 

[The Big Gimper]

P-8 update from Mr. Rogoway:

Exclusive: P-8 Poseidon Flies With Shadowy Radar System Attached

[kitnut617]

That looks as streamlined as a brick   

[Logan Hartke]

P-8s are definitely getting to be a common sight in the skies over Jacksonville.

Cheers,

Logan

[The Big Gimper]

U.S. Navy awards Boeing contract for 20 more P-8A maritime patrol aircraft

Boeing will further equip the U.S. Navy and Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) with maritime patrol capabilities, building 20 more P-8A Poseidon aircraft following a $2.5 billion U.S. Navy order announced on Thursday (January 28th).

Read more here.

[RayS]

U.S. Navy awards Boeing contract for 20 more P-8A maritime patrol aircraft

Boeing will further equip the U.S. Navy and Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) with maritime patrol capabilities, building 20 more P-8A Poseidon aircraft following a $2.5 billion U.S. Navy order announced on Thursday (January 28th).

Read more here.

So now all 8 RAAF P-8s are contracted for. Now to see if the Defence White paper identifies the need for another 4 that are on the cards.

[GTX_Admin]

Essentially they have added another 7 (4+3) thus bringing the RAAF P-8 fleet eventually up to 15.

[GTX_Admin]

First RAAF P-8A (click picture for more details including video):

[GTX_Admin]

Official Handover:

[upnorth]

Looks nice and spiffy. When is the last RAAF Orion likely to bow out?