P-8 Poseidon

B

Born-To-Fly_024

10-Year Member
5-Year Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
43
The P-8 Poseidon will be replacing the P-3 Orion around 2013. Does anyone know how competitive it will be in flight school to get a spot flying the P-8. Is anyone else just dying for this plane to roll out?
 
hard...look at all of the posts in the AFA and Military News forums about getting F-22 spots
 
No one wants to fly P-3's so I don't think it will be any different with the P-8.
 
^^^^

Sorry, but you're dead wrong. Yes, jets are exciting and all that. But P-3s are land-based. That means you aren't on "the boat." You deploy to a shore installation rather than a carrier or other ship. That means that, on deployment, you sleep in a real bed, eat real food, and get per diem (extra pay) for doing it.

And, as a general rule, your deployments are more fixed in terms of time (when you go, how long you're gone). And, today, P-3s don't deploy to the extent they used to. That may not seem like a great thing to you, but when you have a spouse and a couple of kids at home, being home more often is a huge deal.

Finally, you fly a big plane (at least for the USN) and, guess what airlines fly? Big planes.

As someone who was in a P-3 squadron for 3 yrs, I think I have just a bit of insight here.:rolleyes:
 
Hear, hear to usna1985. Plenty of people choose and enjoy P-3's. It's a different community and culture than carrier-based, and that suits just fine for many. Excellent point on the airliner skills transferability too.
 
^^^^^

Thanks for the support. Each aircraft/community has its upside and downside. And, what you consider a plus or minus may depend on your particular situation. I didn't find many malcontent pilots or NFOs in my squadron or in the community in general. I actually had a classmate who went NFO rather than pilot (even though he was fully qualified for pilot) so he had a better chance of getting a P-3 slot (P-3s carry two NFOs).

Also, you may not get a choice of platform. Years ago, someone I knew finished first in his flight class and thus was supposed to have a choice of aircraft. The USMC decided they needed great OV-10 pilots so they said the first two guys from the class would fly OV-10s. End of story.

I should also have added that whether there are slots for certain platforms -- and how many there are for each class -- depends on many things, needs of the USN and USMC being first in line. Also, whether YOU get the slot you want depends on your standing in your class and, as noted above, the needs of the USN/USMC. Welcome to the military!
 
The video is funny. Yes, P-3's are great for all of the reasons mentioned. Per-diem and sleeping in a hotel vice a ship are both awesome in my opinion. But as of today not many people are picking P-3's. I know only 3 people who want P-3's. One of them is antro restricted and the other two are married. Everyone else I know got multi-engine because of their grades. It seems as though the platforms are pretty wide open these days, but that is cyclical. Jets and rotary seem to be the flavors of choice. That being said though, everyone I've talked to enjoys their platform so it seems to work itself out.
 
O-1, O-2 Birdogs & OV-10 Broncos. Now those guys could fly.:thumb:
 
Anyone know where the P-8 will be based? I currently live in Brunswick Maine, and they're shutting down the base in 2011- so sadly no P-8's will fly out of here- which is a dissapointment because they built a brand new tower and a brand new hangar (which is the only one that can accommodate the P-8).

As well, I know the P-8 is stationed overseas..does anyone know where I'll be going overseas if I fly the p-8. I think i've heard of Rota, Spain and Sigonella Italy.
 
In my day, P-3s also flew out of Keflavik and the Azores. Not sure if that is still the case.
 
They will be the same as the P-3. NAS Jax, NAS Whidbey Island, and K-Bay, HI.
 
Navy P-8 to Replace the P-3? Don’t Count on It

26 September 2008
By gps333

The P-8A, a Boeing 737-800 ERX that is the replacement for the P-3C, is becoming increasingly less cost effective and affordable. If any are built for the fleet, the total number is likely to be far below the official goal of 108 aircraft.

The P-3 fleet is disintegrating from overuse at such a high rate that Navy squadrons no longer “own” their own airplanes – what was typically nine aircraft. Instead, all flyable P-3s now belong to the Wing and are “loaned” to squadron aircrews on a mission-by-mission basis. From 288 flyable P-3Cs in 2003, the Navy has less than 100. The P-3 fleet has been aged prematurely by the shift away from ASW to overuse in overland surveillance and weapons delivery since 1991. Ground commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan love the Orion’s ability to loiter over a battle area for 8-10 hours, providing real-time visual and electronic surveillance.

A number of factors make it likely that the 108 aircraft goal is becoming unrealistic. One is cost. When the P-8A development and manufacturing costs are fully amortized, each P-8A will cost approximately $416M in 2004 dollars. Remember, the Navy has to buy ships, whose costs are rising at staggering rates. The Littoral Combat Ship, the Navy’s answer to coastal, “brown water” fighting, has had two of the first four ships canceled for 100% cost overruns. The goal of 55 LCSes is in serious doubt. The just canceled DDG-1000 saw its price per hull exceed $3B, triggering a Congressional revolt and ending what was to have been at least seven ships to just two “technology demonstrators,” a la the Seawolf-class nuclear attack submarines. CVN-X, the follow-on to the Nimitz-class nuclear aircraft carrier, is in limbo with the Navy saying little about its future. CGN-X, the follow-on to the Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser, also looks doomed. Building of the Burke-class guided missile destroyer will, instead, be extended for an undetermined number of additional ships with enhanced capabilities and major upgrades of onboard sensors and greatly increased electrical generation capabilities for new weapons and much more powerful radars. The Navy Program Executive Officers for the various new ship classes has been repeatedly shaken-up in the past several years, with multiple firings of high-level Navy and civilian personnel. Forty-five billion dollars for 108 P-8As seems increasingly undoable.

The other half of the P-8 plan to replace the P-3 is the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned vehicle program. While the Navy has been struggling with this, too, for years, it looks like the RQ-4 Maritime Global Hawk UAV/UCAV will be chosen. At $123M a copy (including development costs) it isn’t cheap, but it has many attractive features. One is the lower cost than the P-8. Another is not having to carry a crew for which the Navy has to pay a small fortune in training and support. Another is the ever greater capability of unmanned systems, which, like computers, double their capability for the same price every eighteen months. The RQ-4 can fly for 24 hours or more, affording unmatched persistent surveillance capability. Yet another is avoiding the loss of personnel in any combat situation – something an ever more militarily ignorant citizenry demands of its armed forces. Arming the RQ-4s becomes even more attractive when one considers as well the recent arrival of mini-sonobouys that may be dropped and monitored from the UCAV as well.

The P-8 program is going to be scaled-back in favor of increasing the responsibility and perhaps the numbers of the BAMS program. The P-8s are to be based at two CONUS sites – NAS Whidbey Island, WA, and NAS Jacksonville, FL, plus a detachment at MCAS Kaneohe, Hawaii. The Pacific and Atlantic wings will probably have a dozen P-8s each, with the Fleet Replacement Squadron at NAS Jacksonville signing for another 18 or so. That makes 42. The Hawaiian detachment may borrow from the Pacific wing, or may have as many as another six aircraft basically based at Kaneohe. That’s 48. Add some wiggle room and as many as 60 P-8s may be built, although that’s unlikely. That’s all we’ll have, plus as many RQ-4s as can be pried-away from the USAF.

One has to understand a little about anti-submarine warfare for this scenario to make sense. There are basically three kinds of ASW: detection, tracking, and localization/attack. Detection is done any number of ways. For the maritime patrol aircraft (MPA), it’s usually done at altitude using sonobouys, either based upon intelligence or upon detection by some other asset. This is easy on the airframe because higher-level flight is usually smooth and more aggressive high-G maneuvers are rare. Passive tracking (using the target’s noise and not generating any yourself) of a located target can also be relatively sedate and again, at a higher altitude. Things get hairy during localization for an attack. For this the P-3 uses active sonobouys that “ping” to provide a distance and bearing to the target, which now knows you are there and begins high-speed evasive maneuvering. The P-3 also uses magnetic anomaly detection (MAD) to provide an “on top” mark from the sub’s steel hull. This is low-level, yanking and banking flight that puts the aircraft through a lot of relatively high-G stuff as a result of steep turns and low-level turbulence, which really wears on both the airframe and crew (see Romancing Julie.) The Navy is trying to extend the life of its remaining p-3s as much as possible by minimizing low-altitude flight. One step has been to create a kit that turns the P-3’s Mk 54 torpedo into a glide bomb that may be launched from altitude. The P-8 is being designed without MAD, a clear nod to minimizing low-altitude flight, both for airframe ease and limiting a target’s chances of detecting a tracking airplane.

The Navy has funding for the first five P-8s. Three are for ground testing and two are to fly, the first in 2009. The P-3s are being re-winged, a plan to extend their airworthiness until replaced by the P-8 beginning in 2012/2013. What the MPA world will look like by then – not to mention the Navy and its budget – cannot yet be accurately foretold. All MPA flight may be transferred to UCAVs, as is the trend for all tactical flight in the US military. The Lockheed P-3 line has been reopened to provide new wings for the P-3 fleet. How long before someone at Lockheed pitches producing entirely new Orion-21s, or even the P-7? Lockheed did so before it lost out to the Boeing version MMA. What is known is that we are entering as dangerous a period to our national security as any since the 1930s.

http://navlog.org/
 
i just looked at the p-8 poseidon. it looks just like a boeing 737, it has a jet rather than propellors so im not sure if im looking at the right one. is this what will be replacing it because it does look cool and i would like to fly them. is it an NFO or a pilot who flies them? im kind of confused as the difference between the two.
 
NFO's don't fly- they are officers onboard who operate the equipment they use to track down submarines. That's cool you want to fly it- im only a sophomore in high school and I thought I was the only kid who wants to fly something other than a tactical fighter jet.
 
Born-To-Fly_024 said:
NFO's don't fly- they are officers onboard who operate the equipment they use to track down submarines. That's cool you want to fly it- im only a sophomore in high school and I thought I was the only kid who wants to fly something other than a tactical fighter jet.
Click to expand...

nah ur not the only one, even though recently i wanted to become a swo for a big part of my life i wanted to be an airline pilot and now that the navy might have 737's it seems like a cool thing to do. fighters are real cool too but i wanted to fly jumbos for a while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top