Replica A Lange & Sohne
Replica Accutron
Replica Audemars Piguet
Replica Baume & Mercier
Replica Bell & Ross
Replica Breitling
Replica Bvlgari
Replica Cartier
Replica Chanel
Replica Chopard
Replica Christian Bernard
Replica Christian Dior
Replica Citizen
Replica Coach
Replica Concord
Replica Corum
Replica D&G
Replica DKNY
Replica Ebel
Replica ESQ
Replica Fendi
Replica Fila
Replica Franck Muller
Replica Girard Perregaux
Replica Givenchy
Replica Gucci
Replica Guess
Replica Hamilton
Replica Haurex
Replica Invicta
Replica IWC
Replica Jacob & Co
Replica Jacques Lemans
Replica Jaeger LeCoultre
Replica Levis
Replica Longines
Replica Mont Blanc
Replica Movado
Replica Omega
Replica Orient
Replica Oris
Replica Panerai
Replica Patek Philippe
Replica Piaget
Replica Rado
Replica Rolex
Replica Sector
Replica Seiko
Replica Skagen
Replica Swatch
Replica Swiss
Replica Swiss Army Victorinox
Replica Tag Heuer
Replica Technomarine
Replica Timberland
Replica Tissot
Replica Ulysse Nardin
Replica Vacheron Constantin
Replica Wenger
Replica Wittnauer
Replica Zenith
Replica Zodiac ecommerce
open source
shop
online shopping
Rolex Sports watches
Rolex Datejusts watches
A Lange & Sohne watches
Aigner watches
Alain Silberstein watches
Audemars Piguet watches
Bell & Ross watches
Breguet watches
Breitling watches
Bvlgari watches
Cartier watches
Chanel watches
Chopard watches
Concord watches
Corum watches
Dior watches
Dolce & Gabbana watches
Ebel watches
Emporio Armani watches
Glashutte watches
Gucci watches
Hermes Watches
IWC watches
Jacob & Co watches
Jaeger LeCoultre watches
Longines watches
Louis Vuitton watches
Mont Blanc watches
Movado watches
Omega watches
Oris watches
Panerai watches
Patek Philippe watches
Philip Stein watches
Porsche Design watches
Rado watches Roger
Roger Dubuis watches
Sarcar watches
Tag Heuer watches
Technomarine watches
Vacheron Constantin watches
Zenith watches ecommerce
open source
shop
online shopping

Posted by: luxury watch at April 17, 2009 03:42 AM

nice to meet you

Posted by: cheap wow gold at April 14, 2008 01:24 AM

As a former U.S. Navy Aviation Anti-Submarine Warfare Operator Aircrewman on board P-3B Orions out of NAS Barbers Point Hawaii. I have to concur with the opinions expressed that the Navy has been making some mistakes. But a lot of them are more the U.S. Congresses fault than they are the U.S. Navy's!

The closing of excellent bases (NAS Moffett Field in California and NAS Barbers Point in Hawaii) and getting rid of the S-3 Viking (as in no more new Vikings) were all tragic mistakes instituted by an uniformed and "feel good legislation" oriented Congress. I have mixed emotions on the Viking, as it was never really effective close in to the fleet because of ELINT and ECM issues, and just flat too much noise in the water generated by several ships screws going at once, along with propulsion machinery noise and the like. Neither the P-3 or the Viking were effective at "Close" support of the fleet.

Where both aircraft shone was at long range open ocean patrol and ASW. When the ambient noise goes down, sonobouy effectiveness goes up, and both the S-3 and the P-3 were certain doom for both diesel and nuclear craft of the 60's, 70's and 80's.

But, since the 1990's the Navy has been slowly ignoring a growing trend. Magneto-hydro-dynamic propulsion (which Tom Clancy predicted in his novel, the Hunt for Red October), Fuel Cells, and "Hybrid" CODAG, CODAT and improved diesel boats are making it a VERY quiet world out there, and newer platforms will have to cover a lot more ground, since the bases NOW are further away from the action.

The P-3 had excellent loiter performance, and was a maritime patrol dream machine. But it was NEVER fast enough to get on station in a hurry and begin prosecution. The Navy relied on trailing U.S. subs following at close distances to blow away foreign subs in the worst case WWIII nuke scenario. The S-3's original mission was to serve as an "on-the-scene" ASW bird that could fly out from a carrier group and prosecute hostiles in a rapid manner. Helicopters have this problem (speed) in spades, and they are no replacement for the Viking. The P-3 was used to track first, so that assets could be moved into place for prosecution, and THEN, the P-3 or other aircraft would attack the enemy when a certain position was confirmed.

The P-3 had one major problem by my perception, and that was room on board. We frequently ran out of sonobouys on station simply because we had expended everything in the limited rack space. Also, when a squadron goes on deployment, the bird you fly out to the Phillipines on is probably how all of your gear (personal or military, parts or bicycles) is going to get there with you. On extended detachments in wierd places, you had to even bring your own food and water. There was never enough cargo capacity on-board.

Also, crew accomodations for really long missions was not so hot. Only two of the 13 people on board could "rack out" comfortably and get any sleep... that is, if you can sleep with about 83db of amient turbo-prop noise, and temperatures in the low 40's to keep the electronic gear from smoking! The new bird has both improved accomodations, AND a ton of expansion and cargo space. The new rotating sonbouy launchers carry a HECK of a lot more bouys than we ever went out with.

There is very little difference between a turboprop, and a turbofan engine. The 737-800 engines are well known for their fuel frugality, and with a 41,000 foot service ceiling, and .82mach top speed (400kt loiter!), it gets places with good economy, and in a hurry! These jets are famous for their friendly handling and ease of pilot operation. And a re-fueling probe means mission durations are only limited by the endurance of the crew.

There are lots of other great features of this aircraft, not the least of which is Boeing's reputation for reliability. Think of all of those 707s still in service as cargo planes after 50 years... How about the B-52?

I think the tax payers are getting their money's worth in this case. The avionics were good when I was in, God only knows how good the new acoustic and non-acoustic package is now! I look forward to their roll-out in 2012 or 2013... and Hope I get to walk through one or talk to some current crewman after training to see what they think.

Byron McKay

Posted by: Byron McKay at October 6, 2007 02:09 AM

I find it unlikely that the P-8 will be built in significant numbers.

http://navlog.org/budget_churn.html

Posted by: CDR K.B. Sherman (Ret.) at May 30, 2007 08:48 AM

For a short period of time, I was a Production Test Pilot, NAVAIRSYSCOM,REP, BURBANK and Engineering Officer.I had also been assigned to two ASW squadrons. I could never see a 737 as an ASW airframe. Why the Navy did not keep the Orion airframe kept instead of the 737 I will never understand.

Lockheed has all of the ASW experience the Boeing will need years to come up with.

Posted by: CDR. Alex, (Ret) at March 8, 2007 06:08 PM

I think the U.S.Navy is making a very big mistake retireing the P-3C up dates! The 737-700 is a nice passenger plane, but as far as being an ASW aircraft, it fall's short of the ASW mission! It's to big.,which it will make it a fine target for a SAM, or bogie! It's fuel consumption will probably be three times that of the P-3C. I just think the Navy is making a big mistake with the P-8 Posident! They should stick with the P-3C Up dates. If it isn't broke, Don't fix it!!! Bigger isn't always better! I am a tax payer just like all you other guys & gals, and I think the P-8 is a waste of tax payers money,Period!

I think the U.S.Navy could go to Lockheed, and tell them what modifications they want on the P-3, and I'm sure Lockheed could make it so. They could come out with a brand new "D" model of the P-3., instead of an Update IV! Retire all the old P-3's, and buy all new P-3's, with all new gear. I'm sure it will cost a whole lot less than buying a fleet of new 737's.

Any comments are welcome on this posting
Sincerely
William

Posted by: William at January 2, 2007 07:15 PM

Good Afternoon Sean,

I think we are drifting off subject here, Noah I don't think likes that, but I do agree with your observations regarding ASW. Along with mine and counter mine warfare the U.S. Navy has let it leadership slip.

The fact that at least seventy five countries now have a submarine force, are looking to have one or like in the cases of India Brazil, Pakistan and Iran are looking to get into the submarine construction business, ASW should have a higher priority for the U.S.N.

The development in Iraq and Afghanistan of IED's should also give a heads up the the U.S. Navy that the technology being developed by the terrorist in this area could be adapted with out much effort to the maritime battlespace. This should serve as a "U.S.S. Stark" reality check.

Perhaps in the near future there sublects will be put up for dicussion on Defense Tech.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at November 27, 2005 03:35 PM

The P-3C with all its updates has become a jack of all trades and a master of many. However, in the ASW community, the Navy has thrown away as valueable an asset in the S-3. With subs becomming quieter/stealthy,and many being purchased by nations not friendly to the United States, envision this, a Super Carrier burning/listing after being successfully attacked by a quiet diesel AIP enemy submarine. Will the Admirals of Navy Air then ask themselves, why did we rely on SH-60's and not update or purchase a new ASW carrier airframe? Will congress ask why the Navy didn't build another class of sub hunting Destroyers or Frigates?

Posted by: Sean Dinneen at November 26, 2005 12:01 PM

Good Morning David,

I'm in some what of agreement with you on the ASW mission, although the Navy might not be in agreement with us.

If I recall with in the Carrier Battle Group the airborne ASW platform is now the SH-60 since the S-3 has been retired.

Although at the end the S-3 was used mostly as an Armed Maritime Patrol platform it was still a robust long range ASW platform that the carrier Battle Group had at it's disposal, that I hope will not in the future be missed.

The Navy's lead research platform for ASW, the SS Dolphin which has been out of service since an at sea accident since 2002 is just now, like in today going back into service. It appears that the U.S.N. has some catching up to do on the ASW learning curve.

With the U.S.Navy now dividing up the world in thirds Blue, Green and Brown waters and the fact that Diesel Submarine Technology is developing at a rapid rate with declineing costs the United States Navy might want to rethink it's ASW programs.

Again though I think the "Orion" is the poster child for replacement of manned airborn platforms with UAV's.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

PS The article on the SS Dolphin can be found in todays "San Diego Union Tribune" in the B section for anyone who is interested in this topic.

Posted by: Byron Skinner at November 25, 2005 02:26 PM

I cannot see a 737 as an ASW Platform. NO WAY. Does the DOD actually think this aircraft will be able to stay on station nearly as long as the P3?

Posted by: Dave G. at November 25, 2005 10:34 AM

Byron,

You're right. The Navy will replace some old P-3s with the new BAMS UAV, which might end up looking like a marinized Global Hawk. BAMS will do persistent surveillance. But the P-8 is still needed for ASW, since the mission requires extreme flexibility and a lot of decision-making that even the most sophisticated UAVs are incapable of.

Posted by: David Axe at November 24, 2005 02:56 PM

Good Morning David and all,

The P-3 Orion seems to be a good platform to be replaced by an UAV. The air frame is getting old and well used, high maintence requirements and in all the P-3's configurations a rather large crew is required who have to fly long, boring and tedious missions. As well as sometimes being dangerious as we saw with the capture of a PE-3 Orion a few years ago by China.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at November 24, 2005 02:23 PM

This article brings back memories of the time I spent in the Navy Reserve as a powerplant mechanic working primarily on P-3 aircraft. As far as spying is concerned, here's what I have to say: Call it anything you want, but the fact is the ability of the U.S. to monitor other nations' military capabilities through the use of platforms such as the P-3 is what gives us the edge. I have no doubt that countries like China are trying to advance their military capabilities by whatever means they can. History repeats itself. Let's not forget what happened in World Wars I & II.

Posted by: Steve Cruz at November 24, 2005 12:43 PM

The dutch P3 fleet has been sold to Germany rather cheaply because of budget cuts. Only the germans and the dutch defense secretary seem to be sastisfied with this deal, by the way.

Posted by: fer at November 24, 2005 05:34 AM

it would seems that spying denotes clandestined and covert actions, while openly gathering intelligence is questionable its far from spying

Posted by: bill at November 24, 2005 04:29 AM

Aaron,

Consider, for a moment, how Americans would react if China sent patrol planes into international waters off San Diego. Legal, yes. Acceptable, no. I'm not saying that the Navy is wrong to put patrol planes into the air near China. I'm just saying ... it's spying.

Lucky us, China doesn't have the ability to patrol distant waters. Because we do, to a far greater extent than any other nation, we must be sensitive to international perceptions.

Posted by: David Axe at November 24, 2005 01:23 AM

"while spying on the Chinese navy"
excuse me? spying? thats what the communists called it. of course that this was a routine observation flight by a clearly marked US military aircraft while in international waters makes this not spying.
There's a difference. spys can get the death penalty. if that happened to US military personel, it would be an act of war.

Posted by: Aaron at November 23, 2005 08:37 PM