If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing Reveals Sub-Tracking ScanEagle Study
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing Reveals Sub-Tracking ScanEagle Study
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing Reveals Sub-Tracking ScanEagle Study
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing Reveals Sub-Tracking ScanEagle Study
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing Reveals Sub-Tracking ScanEagle Study
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing Reveals Sub-Tracking ScanEagle Study
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing Reveals Sub-Tracking ScanEagle Study
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing Reveals Sub-Tracking ScanEagle Study
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cessna Reveals "Cirrus Killer" | Darkwing | Piloting | 31 | July 28th 06 07:29 PM |
For F-5 fans - Iran reveals new F-5 based twin-tailed Azarakhsh fighter | TJ | Military Aviation | 1 | July 11th 04 09:40 PM |
Britain Reveals Secret Weapon - Chicken Powered Nuclear Bomb ! | Ian | Military Aviation | 0 | April 2nd 04 03:18 PM |
Wild flight reveals gaps within FAA --Philadelphia Inquirer | News | Piloting | 0 | March 29th 04 01:30 AM |
Aviation Conspiracy: AP Reveals Series Of Boeing 777 Fires!!! | Bill Mulcahy | General Aviation | 18 | October 16th 03 09:15 PM |