Re: What could replace the P-3?

Date:         26 Apr 98 03:44:39 
From:         Craig Gibbard <oaat@xtra.co.nz>
Organization: Out and About Together
References:   1
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

The problem is that jet engines are not efficent at low altitudes. A
maritime a/c spends most of it's time at low level looking for subs and
ships. If you sit up at high altitude:
a.	The ships can detect you at greater range and you make a lovely big
target for them.
b.	If you detect a sub it takes you valuable time to desend and attack
and the sub will hide.

The P3 has four engines for the basic reason that it needs all that
power to get airbourne if you happen to have uploaded a full weapons
load. This can be upto eight torpedoes/mines internally and four Hapoons
on the outer racks (no weapons on inner racks). This is a large load
approx. 9 600lbs and then add the fuel for a descent patrol range say 48
000 lbs and the a/c is very heavy for take off and during flight.

The Brits run the Nimrod but this has a huge problem with time on
station compared to the P3 as it uses fuel faster due to it's jet
engines.

The P3 during patrols often shuts down one engine (No.1 - has no
generators or hydraulic pumps) to save fuel. This is impossible on a
twin engine a/c.

Craig Gibbard
oaat@xtra.co.nzNeil Gerace wrote: