Boeing Reveals Sub-Tracking ScanEagle Study

See:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...hannel=defense

I suppose that will allow the P-8A to use MAD while staying
at high altitude. But is the small, disposable MAD gear a
Scan Eagle would carry as good as the tail stinger on a larger
aircraft?

wrote in
:

See:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...AN060908.xml&h
eadline=Boeing%20Reveals%20Sub-Tracking%20ScanEagle%20Study&channel=defen
se

I suppose that will allow the P-8A to use MAD while staying
at high altitude. But is the small, disposable MAD gear a
Scan Eagle would carry as good as the tail stinger on a larger
aircraft?


Probably. The external magnetic influences would certainly be much smaller.
In addition, using 21st century technology, instead of '70s or '80s, would
likely make a smaller, more efficient package.

Dave in Sandy Eggo
AT1, USN (Ret)

On Jun 11, 12:16*am, Dave wrote:
wrote :

See:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...s/SCAN060908.x....
eadline=Boeing%20Reveals%20Sub-Tracking%20ScanEagle%20Study&channel=defen
se

I suppose that will allow the P-8A to use MAD while staying
at high altitude. *But is the small, disposable MAD gear a
Scan Eagle would carry as good as the tail stinger on a larger
aircraft?

Probably. The external magnetic influences would certainly be much smaller..
In addition, using 21st century technology, instead of '70s or '80s, would
likely make a smaller, more efficient package.

Dave in Sandy Eggo
AT1, USN (Ret)

More on UAV's that might someday be launched from the P-8A:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...3-d22a245e68c9

BTW, the article in the original post says the ScanEagle
is supposed to follow a submarine around for up to 24 hrs.
Is that possible with just a MAD?

I thought MAD was usually used to confirm sonar contacts,
and pin down the Sub's locations for a more accurate
torpedo drop.

On Jun 11, 11:14*am, "Boomerang" wrote:
That's the basic idea, of course, but once MAD contact is gained, you can
cloverleaf on it as long as you can hang in there at 2-300' (VP) and the
contact doesn't haul ass or back down. *Each time you get a "MADMAN," the
procedure used to be (long time ago for me) to retro out a smoke and if
everything is working right, you can look aft and see the contact's track in
the water as marked by your smokes on each pass. *The helo folks had their
own tactic, but the basic idea is the same. As a former VP CO, I used to
take crews out to the Andrea Doria wreck which sits in about a six knot
current part of the year. By cloverleafing over the wreck and marking each
contact with a smoke, you can simulate what a real one making six knots
would look and feel like. *Good practice. *Nowadays I guess that's all done
in the simulator for a lot less money.

I wonder how well this would work against a sub that DOES
"haul ass or back down". Or against a sub with a low magnetic
signature.

The titanium-hulled Alphas may be gone now, but steel-hulled
boats can have their magnetic signatures reduced by modern
magnetic silencing technology:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...ad.php?t=90956

http://eyeball-series.org/deperm/deperm-eyeball.htm

I wonder if a MAD-only UAV is such a good idea.

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:02:17 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

sinpped for brevity

BTW, the article in the original post says the ScanEagle
is supposed to follow a submarine around for up to 24 hrs.
Is that possible with just a MAD?

In theory, yes. In practice, why would you want to? The idea of the
MAD system was two fold: first, you up the probability of a sub
contact (although that's not a "for sure"; the wreck of the "Andrea
Doria" was once tracked for two days :-) ); second, you develop VERY
accurate position data for weapons release. If all you want do do is
confirm a contact then a couple of passes will do.

It's possible that you might want to engage in a "hold down" action to
prevent the sub from doing something else. But in that case you WANT
the sub to know you're there and tracking it. So stealth would not be
desired.

I thought MAD was usually used to confirm sonar contacts,
and pin down the Sub's locations for a more accurate
torpedo drop.

Generally, yes.

It looks like the P-8 is going to use expendable UAV's to look
at surface targets too:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...5-6ca2d4b9d24d

Using expendable UAV's for routine missions like this could get
expensive after awhile.

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:09:22 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

It looks like the P-8 is going to use expendable UAV's to look
at surface targets too:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...5-6ca2d4b9d24d

Using expendable UAV's for routine missions like this could get
expensive after awhile.

For routine missions you wouldn't.

wrote:

:It looks like the P-8 is going to use expendable UAV's to look
:at surface targets too:
:
:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...5-6ca2d4b9d24d
:
:Using expendable UAV's for routine missions like this could get
:expensive after awhile.
:

Apparently that costs less than the loss of airframe life from using
the airplane to do it, which is why it's being considered.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

On Jun 27, 7:42*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

:It looks like the P-8 is going to use expendable UAV's to look
:at surface targets too:
:
:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...plckController...
:
:Using expendable UAV's for routine missions like this could get
:expensive after awhile.
:

Apparently that costs less than the loss of airframe life from using
the airplane to do it, which is why it's being considered.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Charles Pinckney

I just spent 40 minutes responding to this post with an explanation of
what airborne ASW could do to really be part of the game and become a
serious threat to Submarines. It was really cool and relatively
inexpensive.
Then I realized what the hell I was doing and which side I favored so
I deleted the entire post.
I'm really glad I did, because while it would have been interesting to
see what some of you would have done with it, picking it apart and
playing with it, I know there are some very good S-T&E's here that
might have found a way to make it work. And that scared the hell out
of me.

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb in their life.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet.

BlackBeard ha scritto:
On Jun 27, 7:42 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

:It looks like the P-8 is going to use expendable UAV's to look
:at surface targets too:
:
:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...plckController...
:
:Using expendable UAV's for routine missions like this could get
:expensive after awhile.
:

Apparently that costs less than the loss of airframe life from using
the airplane to do it, which is why it's being considered.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

I just spent 40 minutes responding to this post with an explanation of
what airborne ASW could do to really be part of the game and become a
serious threat to Submarines. It was really cool and relatively
inexpensive.
Then I realized what the hell I was doing and which side I favored so
I deleted the entire post.
I'm really glad I did, because while it would have been interesting to
see what some of you would have done with it, picking it apart and
playing with it, I know there are some very good S-T&E's here that
might have found a way to make it work. And that scared the hell out
of me.

How I must parse this ?

"I was writing ramblings on 'how things must be done' theme"

or

"I was on the verge of talking too much in a public place"

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.