|
AW1Steve -> RE: OT - Sub missing (4/27/2021 1:29:37 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: fcooke
Hi Steve,
Just that therefore the P-8 should be able to carry more gear that the P-3. And like you said you were able to find some pretty modern subs with MAD. I guess the only thing that makes sense is the mission profile has the P-8s flying too high to effectively use MAD. I guess the sonobouy budget is going to be quite high.
And a 747 kitted out as a search/asw bird would be quite the sight to see [X(]
Most of the AW's I served with were always hoping for a MPA version of the B-52. But if you ever want to read about a really badass ASW plane , look up the Canadian Argus. Double crews , much bigger than a P-3 and it would run out of oil before gas. [X(]
The only real problem with the P-8 is that it's really only good for finding nuke subs. Diesel boats hide in the shadows and shallows, spend most of the time on batteries , and can rest on the bottom. A nuke boat , like a shark , generally always has to keep moving. And are a LOT bigger than a little diesel boat.
The USN hasn't really done that much with the shallows since Vietnam. And hasn't spent much time looking for shallow water diesels since the cold war. The only thing of recent "shallow" water usage has been the LCS's (Littoral Combat Ships) which a lot of the crews I've spoken to call "Little crappy ships". The USN has always let our allies (Like NATO) build patrol , PT or hydrofoil craft , while it focused on the "Blue water world". Every 40 or so years we seem to need to relearn those skills. [:(]
|
|
|
|
