On Sat, 17 May 2008 15:33:44 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

The concept is being 'pushed' because flying down to a couple hundred
feet off the water at dead slow speeds for a torpedo launch and then
clawing your way back up to a reasonable search altitude is hard for
the P-3, wears out the airframe, and makes it harder for them to do
their job.

I dunno. I never found the P-3 had to "claw" it's way back to
altitude. It climbed pretty good, as a matter of fact! :-)

The descent and climb take time, fuel, and do increase airframe and
engine stress to a degree, but not so's you'd notice under most
circumstances. Smooth piloting does a lot to keep stresses down.

Going down low does increase the risk of mishap and may expose the
aircraft to AAW weapons on a sub or other surface vessels. Being able
to conduct "stand off" attacks makes sense.

In earlier days sensor limitations meant "low" attacks because A
primary system to developing attack criteria was the MAD. Limitations
in accoustic sensor accuracy and weapon aquisition profile required a
pretty precise weapon placement. As accoustics and weapons have
gotten better maybe MAD is less important.

The same is true for the P-8 in spades.

Don't know much about this bird, yet.