P-8A’s Acoustic Sensor System Twice as Effective as the P-3’s

[Odysseus]

i have one dough

if that UAV is launched from P-8, they how did they recover that UAV??

Not much is know about this UAV, not even its name. Still in trial.
It's been speculated that the drone will be deployed by the P-8A's sonobuoy rotary launchers.

It will be based on Coyote air launched drone, which is a expendable UAV.

 

[Penguin]

There is that and then there is this,

Navy’s P-8 Sub Hunter Bets On High Altitude, High Tech; Barf Bags Optional « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

Do you think that the IN might be skeptical about the sensors which went onboard the P8I's compared to P8A's? So, they went with an additional sensor which the USN thought was redundant.

And if the P-8A sensors are so precise then why is the USN going for such a complicated solution such as launching the MAD drones from the planes sonobuoy rotary launchers?

Although the P-8A is capable of low-altitude operations, it is designed primarily for use at relatively high altitudes to enable the aircraft to keep watch over large ocean areas and fly as fuel-efficiently as possible.

MAD was crucial to the P-3’s traditional low-altitude tactics. Compared to turboprop aircraft, the jetpowered P-8 is more efficient at higher altitudes, where is also has best use of its surveillance equipment. It can also avoid detection by submarines better that way (engine noise from a low level P-3 can be heard/registered below the surface). One advantage of a drone MAD system could be the ability to investigate multiple target more closely simultaneously, while staying at altitude. P-8 probably can get good results anyway from sonobuoys. So I don't think it is a sensor issue per se, but rather a platform/system optimization issue.

On a plane, the MAD sensor is placed at the end of a boom or a towed aerodynamic device to reduce interference from electrical equipment or metal in the fuselage of the aircraft. A MAD drone would be even further away from the aircraft fuselage and - if the drone is made from non-metallic composite materials - could have better relative performance. The size of the submarine and its hull composition determine the detection range. For detection of the change in anomaly, the submarine must be very near the sensor's position (or vice versa) and close to the sea surface. The MAD sensor works best at low altitudes.

The bomb bay of the P-8A does not contain a rotary launcher, AFAIK.

Bouys are ejected vertically under positive pressure through close fitting tubes

 

[Odysseus]

Although the P-8A is capable of low-altitude operations, it is designed primarily for use at relatively high altitudes to enable the aircraft to keep watch over large ocean areas and fly as fuel-efficiently as possible.

MAD was crucial to the P-3’s traditional low-altitude tactics. Compared to turboprop aircraft, the jetpowered P-8 is more efficient at higher altitudes, where is also has best use of its surveillance equipment. It can also avoid detection by submarines better that way (engine noise from a low level P-3 can be heard/registered below the surface). One advantage of a drone MAD system could be the ability to investigate multiple target more closely simultaneously, while staying at altitude. P-8 probably can get good results anyway from sonobuoys. So I don't think it is a sensor issue per se, but rather a platform/system optimization issue.

On a plane, the MAD sensor is placed at the end of a boom or a towed aerodynamic device to reduce interference from electrical equipment or metal in the fuselage of the aircraft. A MAD drone would be even further away from the aircraft fuselage and - if the drone is made from non-metallic composite materials - could have better relative performance. The size of the submarine and its hull composition determine the detection range. For detection of the change in anomaly, the submarine must be very near the sensor's position (or vice versa) and close to the sea surface. The MAD sensor works best at low altitudes.

The bomb bay of the P-8A does not contain a rotary launcher, AFAIK.

Bouys are ejected vertically under positive pressure through close fitting tubes

One can just speculate as to why IN went for the MAD.

As for the sonobuoy launcher, as per Boeing's own poster from Aero India 2011, P-8 contains a rotary launcher.

Also, Check the cutaway diagram on page 14 of this Boeing archive.

http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2007/march/cover.pdf

 

[Penguin]

One can just speculate as to why IN went for the MAD.

As for the sonobuoy launcher, as per Boeing's own poster from Aero India 2011, P-8 contains a rotary launcher.

View attachment 239860

Also, Check the cutaway diagram on page 14 of this Boeing archive.

http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2007/march/cover.pdf

3 actually, as I understand it. But not to be confused with a Rotary weapons launcher. I.e. for the small stuff.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

One can just speculate as to why IN went for the MAD.

As for the sonobuoy launcher, as per Boeing's own poster from Aero India 2011, P-8 contains a rotary launcher.

View attachment 239860

Also, Check the cutaway diagram on page 14 of this Boeing archive.

http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2007/march/cover.pdf

There is no need to speculate why the IN went in for a MAD and aft Radar on the P-8I. Its because it fits into the IN's Operational Doctrines for airborne ASW. The IN wanted and insisted on this capability, since it is appropriate in its operating context. One could even think of it as an add-on to the P-8's organic capability in a sense.

 

[Penguin]

Or as a factor limiting its capability to find and engage multiple targets and threats simultaneously.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Or as a factor limiting its capability to find and engage multiple targets and threats simultaneously.

Nope; as a "Multiple Redundancy Capability".

 

[Penguin]

Nope; as a "Multiple Redundancy Capability".

No, one can actually think of it as a factor limiting its capability to find and engage multiple targets and threats simultaneously, given what MAD is used for in ASW, and where it needs to be in order to be effective.

NAVAL DRONES: Drones Get MAD
Drones Could Save the Navy’s Troubled P-8 Patrol Plane — War Is Boring — Medium
(SBIR) Navy - Low Magnetic Signature Expendable Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) for Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)

 

[Capt.Popeye]

No, one can actually think of it as a factor limiting its capability to find and engage multiple targets and threats simultaneously, given what MAD is used for in ASW, and where it needs to be in order to be effective.

NAVAL DRONES: Drones Get MAD
Drones Could Save the Navy’s Troubled P-8 Patrol Plane — War Is Boring — Medium
(SBIR) Navy - Low Magnetic Signature Expendable Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) for Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)

Don't go only by what appears in print.
IN thought through their requirements and then put them in the specs.

 

[Fenrir]

IN thought through their requirements and then put them in the specs.

*I'm just speculating, since I really don't know the answer.

Is it possible that the inclusion of a MAD on the P-8I isn't because it was a requirement of the IN, though that influenced the decision too, but rather that the P-8I wouldn't be equipped with more sensitive US equipment or that India wasn't likely to be an operator of the MQ-4C, who supplements the P-8A?

I know the P-8A and P-8I use different electronics - though many of the tracking systems (radars, etc.) are the same between both aircraft, the P-8I uses those made almost exclusively from Bharat Electronics Limited, and as was previously mentioned, not everything on either nations aircraft is going to be found on the other nation's (such as the P-8A's hydrocarbon detector for tracking AIP and diesel-electric subs), so is it possible that India needed the MAD since the US wouldn't share its data-fusion tracking systems that use remote sensing and other secretive electronics?

The data-fusion system is similar to the cancelled Aerial Common Sensor

Add the BAMS Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton and for the US the MAD was deemed an unnecessary cost.

I can't share much on remote sensing since I'm not too versed in it.

At the height the P-8A is intended to operate, a MAD system isn't going to be too effective anyway.

I wish @SvenSvensonov was still around, he'd be the more logical and knowledgeable source on this matter.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

*I'm just speculating, since I really don't know the answer.

Is it possible that the inclusion of a MAD on the P-8I isn't because it was a requirement of the IN, though that influenced the decision too, but rather that the P-8I wouldn't be equipped with more sensitive US equipment?

I know the P-8A and P-8I use different electronics, the P-8I uses those made almost exclusively from Bharat Electronics Limited, and as was previously mentioned, not everything on either nations aircraft is going to be found on the other nation's, so is it possible that India needed the MAD since the US wouldn't share its data-fusion tracking systems that use remote sensing and other secretive electronics.

The data-fusion system is similar to the cancelled Aerial Common Sensor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Add the BAMS Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and for the US the MAD was deemed an unnecessary cost.

At the height the P-8A is intended to operate, a MAD system isn't going to be too effective anyway.

I wish @SvenSvensonov was still around, he'd be the more logical and knowledgeable source on this matter.

Nope.
What the P-8I lacks; only affects interoperability and inter-communication with a/craft of other Forces; but not within Indian Forces. Simply because India did not sign-up for CISMOA and some other things.
Just as the P-8I has its own dedicated IFF and secured Comms. suitable for Indian Forces.

MAD is incorporated simply because it is an integral part of IN Op. Sys. and doctrines and there is a reason for that: its appropriate for the regional ops. context.
As of now; drones are not part of the IN's LRMR and ASW ops.

The IN operates the P-8I both at Hi-Altitude as well as low level; that again is predicated by local conditions. ASW tactics are not universal all over the world.

p.s. the HC detector and IR detectors are there on the P-8Is.

 

[Fenrir]

As for the sonobuoy launcher, as per Boeing's own poster from Aero India 2011, P-8 contains a rotary launcher.

View attachment 239860

They do contain a rotary launcher, but they're similar to this - found on an MH-60:

Rather than this ALCM rotary launcher on a US B-52:

Think of the sonobouy launcher as a vertically oriented rocket pod, since that's basically what they are - without the rockets of course and using a different method of expulsion (compresses air rather than rocket propulsion):

 

[migflug]

We should buy atleast 24 of these against 12. There is going to be large number of subs venturing into indian ocean in near future. We need to keep track of each of them

 

[Abingdonboy]

(Why) Does the P-8I retain a tail mounted MAD?

Because a MAD is still very relevant in today's environment, the USN chose to omit a MAD on their P-8s to save weight and hence increase the range of their P-8s, the IN chose to incur that opportunity cost for improved capability- the right decision IMO.

We should buy atleast 24 of these against 12. There is going to be large number of subs venturing into indian ocean in near future. We need to keep track of each of them

24-30 is the number the IN (and Boeing) project the IN needing by 2027. This will be met incrementally with batches.

 

[Penguin]

Because a MAD is still very relevant in today's environment, the USN chose to omit a MAD on their P-8s to save weight and hence increase the range of their P-8s, the IN chose to incur that opportunity cost for improved capability- the right decision IMO.


24-30 is the number the IN (and Boeing) project the IN needing by 2027. This will be met incrementally with batches.

Nah, the choice not to use MAD is a choice for flying at altitude, which in turn translate to better range (but most importantly, optimal use of other - non ASW - sensors.