Talk:P-8 Poseidon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] UK/US

On one hand, it's too bad BAE felt that politics were against them. I think the US and UK should sign some sort of an agreement regarding their defense industry, allowing zero restrictions regarding purchasing or technology sharing. After all, there are a few companies on both sides of the pond with mixed US/UK shareholding. Northrop on the US side, BAE and RR on the UK side, just to name a few. On the other side, I think the Nimrod is a suboptimal platform, and it was time for a new start. Using a 737 platform is all the better, because you get a good commercial support base. -Joseph 19:07, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)

I'd have to agree, but I think the technology transfer problems they're having with the F-35 is a far more concerning state of affairs. While the Nimrod upgrade (to a basically all new airframe) is marginally justifiable for the UK I would agree that the USN was right to go for a 737 platform entirely tailored to their needs. I found your contribution regarding Italy very interesting - and its just made me realise what a good hand Boeing now has, the commonality of its 737 MMA and AEW&C platforms. Mark 13:09, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It's too bad the UK ASTOR program wasn't on a 737--that'd be quite a powerful trio. I suppose it's not too late to do it. -Joseph 19:30, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)
The aircraft itself might have been desirable (cabin width etc.) but part of the ASTOR spec. was high altitude, which narrowed the field to business aircraft. The 737 ceiling is 35,000ft, the 767's 40,000ft. The Global Express flies at a maximium 51,000ft. I suppose there's nothing to stop another air force ordering the Raytheon radar on the 737 - but would rather have the greater radar range capabilities offered by the Global Exp. Mark 17:04, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Indian P-8A's

In the Business Standard article (http://www.business-standard.com/bsonline/storypage.php?bKeyFlag=BO&autono=15447) the sentence "The company has also invited India to be its development partner" made me wonder. Does anyone know what "development partner" in this context entails?


Development partner means Boeing wants a good working relationship with India so they can customize the plane to India's needs. Frmorrison (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

maru (talk) contribs 04:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it, changing link to http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/mma/index.html --rogerd 05:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poseidon

Aircraft has a name now -- the P-8A Poseidon XPav 04:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manufacturer

According the link in the Infobox, the Manufacturer is a company or individual involved building, etc. the hardware. The company, Boeing is the manufacturer. Boeing Commerical Airplanes and Integrated Defense Systems are not companies. They are business units within Boeing. This should be simple enough to understand.. -Fnlayson 22:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is taking the instructions too literally. Anyone clicking on that link would be looking for more information regarding similar products or the associated facilities or business information. Taking them to the main Boeing link would reveal a lot of info about Boeing in general. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. Boeing's airliners have Boeing Commercial Airplanes as their manufacturer. Their military products ought to follow suit. --Scott Wilson 22:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hardly suprising that I agree with the two comments above since I challenged the removal of Boeing IDS. Also it's my understanding that although Boeing IDS' legal status is that of a "business segment", BCA is a fully registered company. Mark83 23:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You have a source that says BCA is currently a legal company? -Fnlayson 23:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
For that matter, parts of IDS is still a legal company. For instance, many IDS contracts are between the Department of Defense and McDonnell Douglas Corporation. The P-8 is actually one such contract. Just look at the caption on the second image in the P-8 article for proof. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 02:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basing and Armaments??

Will the P-8 be carrier based like its predecessor, or just land based? Also, will it be armed like the P-3?147.145.40.44 20:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

P-3 was never carrier based as far as I know! P-8 most definetly won't be either. Mark83 21:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The Lockheed P-3 Orion was land-based, and never, ever landed on a carrier. The S-3 Viking, also by Lockheed, was designed for carrier-based ASW. Given that both have "3" in the name, were made by Lockheed, and carried out ASW missions, the confusion is understandable. As to armaments, yes, the P-8 will be armed, with a weapons bay in the rear fuselage and 2 or 4 hardpoints on the wings for weapons carriage. I assume it will carry the same weapons as late-model P-3Cs, with newer weapons as they become available. Hope this helps. - BillCJ 21:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It can't be carrier based. It's derviative of a land based 737 and will be too big for a carrier anyway. Good question on weapons. The Navy MMA page mentions a bomb bay and 6 weapons stations. -Fnlayson 21:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MMA.jpg

Image:MMA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Fair Use rationale has been added in template form. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Many in the P-3 community still believe that a jet aircraft cannot accomplish the mission. Skeptics believe that the 737 cannot fly slow enough to maintain a pattern for sonobouy sweeps. Rumor has it that the bomb bay weapon delivery will not work. Nor will the sonobouy delivery system. Not to mention the fact that a P-3 can be on station twice as long as the P-8, the P-3 can fly up to 18 hours. The fact is that the Navy (pilots) wanted a jet aircraft to take over for the P-3. It makes it a lot easier for aircrews to transfer over to civilian airliner jobs.

The P-7 would have been a better choice but Lockheed Martin’s inability to produce a prototype and over budgeting lost the company's opportunity for a major project. Rv192 (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

All that performance spec info may be true.... but at the moment it is at best speculation, and somewhat unsubstantiated rumour.
Re on-station time.... the P-3 can be on-station twice as long? Based on what distance to base? The P-8 argument was that they could get on-station quicker, and thus rotate crews through quicker - achieving the same overall on-station coverage as the current P-3 fleet.
Re Pilot's wanting jobs.... sorry - but that is just laughable - P-3 pilot's have no problems getting jobs now with turbo-prop experience, and to think that they would bias a project like this for that reason? please... PalawanOz (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia does not do rumor and speculation. If you can find a valid reference for those claims, it could be added in a neutral, balanced manner. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)