This is one rare aircraft program from launch to completed aircraft that was unusually completed ahead of schedule, under budget but also meets the spec required for why it was made but it probably helps its a 707/727/737 fuselage derivative
I think it's entirely down to it being a 737 varient. Boeing has been manufacturing and modifying it for countless decades and in numbers unseen anywhere else in that sector.
Agreed. Wise application of COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf).... if no other items than; production and supply lines and to some extent airframe and engines. But that's a lot less expensive than bespoke, design build.
@@I_am_looking_for_GF Yup it is. I was the Deputy CC at the DoD Plant Office in Tukwila, WA from 2012-2021 (that office is responsible for contract admin, QA oversight and aircraft delivery acceptance testing of the P-8 and the KC-46) and in that time we delivered 135 P-8s to the USN, Australians, Brits and Norwegians. All but two of those aircraft delivered to the warfighter an average 2-4 weeks ahead of schedule. The USN saved enough on these aircraft they were able to add two additional tails to their original buy at no additional cost. Great airplane and great program from start to finish.
I REALLY like the way this style of aircraft was approached and presented in this video. So many videos that cover these sorts of aircraft just, don't have the 'Simple Flying" vibe to them. I would love to see more like this topic. Tough there has literally not been a single video I've not thoroughly enjoyed!
I’m not sure how Bombardier is expecting aircraft the size of a large private jet is going to be able to directly compete with an aircraft the size of a 737. It seems that they don’t currently manufacture an airframe that is prepared to directly compete with the P-8.
@@N1njaSnake While that may potentially be true, it was Canada's own words that said the P-8 was the ONLY aircraft on offer which satisfied all of their requirements. Bombardier doesn't currently produce an aircraft meant to compete with it, so they're just trying to shoehorn themselves into the conversation simply based on the fact that they're a Canadian manufacturer.
A few years ago I got to work on building assembly line where they make the wings for P-8. Not far from where we ate lunch they were testing the wings for stress. It's pretty amazing how far those wings could "fold"!
If it helps, Harpoon is an anti-ship missile that the US and its allies have had in inventory for half of forever. P-8 can carry them externally and possibly internally also.
Shame it's STILL `just` a commercial airliner. With all the limitations that entails. An anti-submarine and maritime patrol aicraft should be able to perform a typical Hi-Lo-Hi mission scenario. Try as you might you can't make a case for long-term suitability of an airliner for that job. I predict the Poseidon will run out of fatigue life decades ahead of any in-service requirements, and need hugely expensive re-winging. That said, it will probably need a more general update by then anyway. New avionics, new engines, re-instrumentation in which case any re-winging should just be a.n.other cost factor in the overall cost in what has been a cost-limited operational life.
@@simonevans8979- It is not the same identical airframe as the commercial version you idiot. The P-8 has a strengthened fuselage for low-altitude operations and higher performance wing design… so many idiots in this world…
@@simonevans8979make it obvious you don't know about the military/civilian aircraft blend. That's why we've been doing these same exactly roles based on Boeing variants for decades
Probably worth mentioning that the additional wingspan is thanks to the addition of 767-400ER/777/787-style raked wingtips, which can only be found on this variant of the 737.
some ultra low cost airlines soon will be offering the half-way fare, and those unfortunates can only hope it comes with a couple of parachutes. BOmb bay doors are put to good use with the half way fare.
I get a lot of 737 maxs flying over my house before landing at sea tac. I’m also in the area from NAS Whitney island. The p8s sound completely different than the delta and Alaska airlines 737s that fly over my house
86% is the official manufacturer’s statement. That said, the figure likely excludes military-specific systems from consideration in order to inflate it for marketing purposes, since those parts obviously have no civilian-model equivalent.
Super nice vid, thanks for sharing. We had the opportunity to walk through one at NASWI in Oak Harbor last year during their open house - impressive piece of machinery. I've flown in dozens of 737s, but none with torpedoes and anti-ship missiles!
I LOVE the P-8. They will occasionally visit my home airport to hang out in the pattern for like an hour. Anytime I see one i go “P-8!!!” And by go I mean I yell it rather loudly. I mean I do the same for B-1s, but P-8s are also super cool, idk why I like them so much, but I do.
I have a soft spot for maritime patrol aircraft, ever since I built a model of the PBY Catalina as a kid. Weird lumpy bumpy things with a boring but important job!
This is a good example where commonality makes sense. It is not about the plane. It is about having a reliable platform to do your stuff. The biggest problem that grounds high performance aircraft is getting spare parts.
EXCELLENT video. Thanks very much. The P-8A Poseidon and the E-7A Wedgetail are an excellent COTS (Commercial Of The Shelf) programs. KUDOS for the different nations who are purchasing this airplanes as well as Boeing.
It will be very welcome here in NZ as our maritime survailance, search and rescue are the core functions of our defence force and it might prove to be the best procurement decision the defence force has ever made.
P-8 is the type, P-8A and P-8I are the variants. If the USA will ever upgrade her then she will become P-8B. Export customers often get their own letter suffix. It is really simple.
Canada and the RCAF will be fortunate to have the Poseidon P-8 in its fleet. The Lockheed CP-140 Auroras will continue service during the delivery phase and will compliment the P-8s for many years given the upgrades that have been completed. The Bombardier alternative will no doubt be a capable platform but will be available far too late given operational needs. Many thanks to Canada’s US and 5 eyes allies.
So what happens to all these well maintained P-3s now becoming available? The best aircraft I ever flew on was the Lockheed Electra and that is basically a P-3. Smooth comfortable big windows wide body and big sexy propellors for visual stimulation. A memorable aircraft and I have flown in DeHavilland Dragon Rapides, DC-3s, Lockheed Constellations, DC-7C Argonauts, De Havilland Comets, Boeing 707s Twin Pioneers el al. The Electra came out tops.
Is the slight difference in height from the addition of the antenna fairing atop the vertical stabilizer on the P-8, or does the whole aircraft sit slightly higher?
Great to hear that we ordered more of them. 12 seems barely enough for Germany already. Anyway, hope to see them soon in service helping to locate ships in danger. :)
Can someone please explain what the red flap/switch on the yoke at @2:31 is? On commercial 737s, this is normally the flight number dials; right and left side of the yoke for Captain and FO respectively.
The fifty year old 737 plaform as the foundation of airliners, business jets, VIP transports, trainers, C3ISR and others. It will be interesting to watch developments of the militarized 737 versions as they last 60+ years, as have the 720/707/C-135 series. Is the 737/P-8 the C-135, C-130 of this century? I think so.
There is already a military 737 cargo aircraft, the C-40. Airforce has a whole bunch, navy has a whole bunch, and the marines just got their first. It has a cargo door at the front where stuff can be loaded on pallets. Interior can be easily configured to carry a full load of passengers, a full load of cargo, or a little of both. Aside from a cargo door and built-in stairs front and rear, it's mostly identical to any commercial 737.
So surprisingly, the Indian variant is more equipped than the standard variants? Also, since India uses a mix of Russian and French air assets, compatibility with their communication protocols is a key requirement. Furthermore, the Indian military doesnt use probe-type refuelling system used by the US instead they use the drogue-type system.
The refuelling system system that India, the RAF and the US Navy use is probe and drogue. The alternative (as used by the USAF) is called a boom, not probe.
I think there's a different trade-off between range and functionality. The US version originally had MAD in the requirements but removed it for weight reasons. Not sure about mounting a radar at the back -- it sure sounds like APS-143C(V)3 is yet another SAR/ISAR radar for looking at the sea.
@@vidco2467 Nice comeback mate! @AftonAdams probably doesnt realise that India has a bigger economy than the UK with some big British brands owned by Indian conglomerates.
with the growing success of the P-8I Neptune (Block III) maritime multi mission ASW aircraft . . . wonder, if future ASW aircraft can be based on the B737-900 ER narrow body jet which is a stretched variant of the B737-800 . . .
I was hoping the Kawasaki P-1 (previously P-X, XP-1), Japanese maritime patrol aircraft developed and manufactured by Kawasaki Aerospace Company had been shown for comparison.
Yeah, its the real competition and, to be blunt, it bests the P-8 in pretty much every category. Unfortunately, its more expensive as a result and Boeing/the US have been pretty aggressive in how they want other nations to adopt the P-8, even though it requires very different, newly developed maritime tactics which haven't come about because they are superior, but because the limitations of the P-8 necessitate them.
They also have a faster power up time. The P-3s run the engines at 100% rpm and the throttle is called a power lever because it increases power and changes prop pitch. Nothing feels better in high sink rate at low altitude over the ocean when the power levers are moved forward with a fast recovery with the turbo props. A jet you have the spool up time lag. I went on a few patrols and went on many detachments in a P-3s about 50 years ago.
at lower speeds and altitudes yes, he actually said a bit of misinfo as the P-8 is more suited towards high/medium altitude and it's sensors allow to to conduct ASW up to angels 25 iirc, this will give it more time on station and a smoother ride for the crews
Yea, I'm a little skeptical about it's capabilities compared to the P-3. The only regime where this thing can loiter and surveil somewhat economically is at altitude, and if you want to deliver a weapon I imagine there is quite a long lead time before you can be at a speed and altitude for accurate delivery. Once down at that altitude, having MAD to nail down the target would seem to be a plus, but as I understand it, the "A" model doesn't even have MAD. I suppose different tactics have had to evolve to accommodate this new breed of ASW aircraft where their transit time to a target area (presumably defined by a SOSUS contact or emerging situation) is much shorter, but their loiter time is severely truncated. On balance I think the P-3 is still a superior platform, but the much shorter missions are probably nice for the crews, and the accountants are undoubtedly happier.
All the P8A are identical regardless of which country is flying them right down to the seat cover colors. It means crews can get in to a P8A and EVERYTHING is identical. If any equipment is changed they all change.
The 737 aircraft has already proved its ability to work in the Canadian Arctic. Commercial companies regularly fly men and equipment to mines and oil exploration rigs across the North.
While the 6500 is still for sale by Bombardier, not sure where it will be built. Shortly, Bomabrdier has to closed its downview plant (the Dash-8 production sold to deHaviland Canada was evicted from it already) and BBD will move into a plant at Toronto Pearson airport. The 7500 fuselage portions are currently made by an Airbus subsidiary (Stelia) at Mirabel QC with final assembly at Downsview (so will be Pearson). Uncertainty about where the 6500 would be made would weight against a serious contract from government. Ot is easy for a government who doesn't trust a vendor to survive to simply set project requirements to exclude that vendor's proposed product.
Probably off topic..BUT seeing the P8s wings it makes me wonder why Boeing didn’t choose to use those same raked wingtips for the 737 max series?!? I hope that made sense..IMO those wings look more modern versus the winglets(not sure the proper new word for them on the max is) However..those wings look amazing
@@GabbieGirl007 no they’re different. On the 737 MAX they’re spilt wingtips. On the 737 NG they’re Split Schimitars. They’re different. Google it. There’s actually physical difference between them
I'm not buying 86% commonality. The fuselage has massive changes for the Bombay and structural work to accommodate the maritime environment that are not on the 737. You can see the wing changes and they are significant. In the proposal stage they were supposed to be on the same production line. Maybe 50 percent but I am betting around 25 percent. i could be wrong. Still trying to figure out how to do ASW from 20K feet. As I recall Soviet Yankee sub patrol areas were 1500 miles off the coast and loiter times were 4 hours then. So add an extra 600 miles transit that reduces loiter to? Maybe 3 hours. Anyway it is the new World standard no matter what. Hope they keep sustainment funded and focused.
@@gibbo_303 The issue is not monitoring your pattern it is putting the pattern in properly. With a 30 kt wind and a bouy drop from 15K feet you have a high probability of not hitting the point you want or need. Data link, gps dont correct that risk.
I recall seeing business jet types ( Gulf Stream I think? ) having similar military applications. Smaller so carrying less but I think they have advantages. Maybe I’m missing something about them other than size and institutional/business politics 🤷♂️
One of the purposes of those jets is to act as hostile aircraft or missile attempting to penetrate the battle group during pre deployment training. The jets will launch, fly towards CVN and hopefully get intercepted by friendly aircraft or missiles.
It has bigger wings than standard model so different design requirements. Wikipedia says: The P-8 is unique in that it has 767-400ER-style raked wingtips instead of the blended winglets available on 737NG variants
Shit it takes a month just to push out one fuselage out of shop, compared to a couple days for civy. Compared to civy planes, these bad boys have so much more shit on them its crazy. Nuts and bolts over ever damn inch almost
It appears the P8 is the leader in this category of aircraft. BUT those in Canadian procurement do things that make no logical sense sometimes. I do not know why Canadian Armed Forces feel they always need something different from our allies. I have never figured that out. Hope they choose correctly and buy Boeing.
Then you don't understand just how different Canada's requirements and operational environment are from our allies. In particular the limitations the CAF face
@avroarchitect1793 Every purchase they make has to be tweaked. I think the y forget the US uses this equipment in the far north. Tired of them wasting money just to get something "special". Tons of money wasted and orders dropped because the armed forces can't decide on a viable option.
A military version of the new engine option it's called A320 M3A. For the A321M3A you are looking at the Luftwaffe due to them operating one. A future P-8 variant has to use 737 max 10 as the base airframe P-8B if built
Australian air force fly the A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport, or KC30. The Canadian air force have also been looking at this airframe to replace their aging fleet of CC150 Polaris transport and refueling aircraft.
1:23 Commentator: "The P8 shares 86% commonality with commercial 737NG..." Label: "... 56% commonality between P8 and 737..." My question now is.... Which is which???
The P8 looks like a great aircraft for the CAF. But like anything in Canada, it’s only a matter of time before the Canadian government makes a big mess of things with long drawn out delays and significant cost overruns. Hope it miraculously works out though.
Selecting the Bombardier option would be a Billion dollar boondoggle for Canada 🇨🇦. They should take advantage of the development and production costs already invested by other nations .
I think the p8 was chosen because of the mix of fuel efficiency, wide parts availability, and metal body. Basically 3 cost reducers for military usage. Metal reduces cost over composite for specific use cases that seem to have has issues in the 787/a350 such as lightning strikes and delamination events. The lower cumulative flight hours of a military aircraft also make the 787/a350 fuel savings a bit overkill, and the 4 engine systems like the one you mentioned are a bit overkill for a Canadian coast guard plane. Canada has a lot more ground/sea to cover than japan, so when patrolling the arctic they probably want to cut costs.
The P-1 can carry only 100 sonobuoys to the P-8’s 129, has a 4-hour loiter radius about 100nmi shorter, and most importantly lacks aerial refueling. Having a MAD is an irrelevant advantage when the P-8 can also have one if its customers choose to spec it. It does have more weapons capacity though.
It used to be thet military got the latest ad greatest in innovation. Now, they get recyled old aircraft like 767 for tankers, and now old 737 for search. It doesn't ake much sense for Boeing to keep production lines of discontued products going for the military. Shouldn't Boeing be updating the P8 to be based on a 737-8 (MAX) with new engines etc and just install the same gismos on it as it for when converting 737NG to P8 & With regards to Bombardier, it shoudl at least be pitching a 7500 over the older 6500 to at least keep production lines to a minimum. Also, from a government,s point of view, the lack fo financial future for what is left of Bombardier means it cannot be trusted to deliver the products especially if a long term delivery contract. It does not have the resources to see this project through especiallty if there are delays.
I remember when our navy insisted on MAD , otherwise it quite pointless,when buying P8i... Come to think of it why would the Americans not Install it ???
Canada cannot order enough copies of a replacement to the CP-140, to make development of a uniquely Canadian surveillance, anti submarine, aircraft economically feasible. Added to this, the integration cost of a “made in Canada” solution would be a night mare - CP-140 should have taught us that! Sorry, but the Boeing Poseidon P8 has over 150 units, already produced and much of the growing pains have been solved, where the cost are now known. As much as I would love to see a Canadian produced military asset, the Air Force is not in the position to lead, or command innovation in military equipment… we, just don’t buy enough.
It has the wings of the 737-900 and a ferry range of roughly 8800kms due to the more powerful engines, also people are heavy and this carries less of them lmao
As a Canadian I support the P8 decision. Boeing has set the standard, amortized the development cost and their supply chain is solid. Bombardier's cost per unit would be ridiculous due to the staggering development cost they would incur with the very few they would build, not to mention trying to integrate their system with 5i's. Why reinvent the wheel when an ideal turnkey product is available off the shelf.
They choose right, Bombardier is late to the game. If they had gone with the A220 into military variance before commercial. Which pitted them against Boeing. The might have have a commercial success too. Instead of offloading it to Airbus. And totally loosing out, in a huge market. Obviously they now, us all to feel sorry for them. They took their eyes off the ball. Canadians may be pissed at boeing, during the C220 fiasco. Clearly out played by boeing. Hint... boeing....lol😅😅 Hey Air force! i love those Alectra. Also Porter's dash8-400.
Yeah the Boeing P-8A Poseidon is Boeing's 2nd attempt at a Jet MPA as Boeing had pushed a Boeing 757 MPA in the 1990s and the British had already shown Jet MPAs were possible and the future with the Hawker-Siddeley Nimrod back in the late 1960s
I would prepare a fleet of Global 6500s and P8As you need P8As to head to the north and to the further missions into the Pacific and Atlantic, whereas the 6500 should be better for closer missions
Boeing needs to sharpen its pencils now and offer a sweet deal before Bombardier's lobbyists start pitching Taylor Swift's tour jet with some IS binoculars on it.
I wonder what the P-8 can, that the Kawasaki P-1 can't, so that it is the only option. I know that due to politics and proximity the Canadians were always more likely to buy a American then Japanese aircraft, just wonder why it was ruled out complete from the beginning, instead of using it to push the price of the P-8 down.
@@richcb5 In the articles and videos I saw about the P-1 Japan is looking for international customers and they also have presented the P-1 on several international airshow. So far they just haven't found an international market. Also the P-1 is an indigenous developed airplane from Japan, I haven't heard that Lockheed is involved. And even when they are involved, why shouldn't they allow it to sell internationally? If Lockheed is involved and somebody buys it, Lochheed makes some money. If somebody buys the P-8 their competitor Boeing makes money. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_P-1#Potential_operators
The P-1 has much fewer shared parts with other types and 4 engines, which makes it more expensive to operate. It also carries fewer sonobuoys, lacks aerial refueling capabilities, and has a bit less range innately. In fact, Germany turned it down specifically because it lacked aerial refueling capabilities. Where it does beat the P-8 handily is weapons load (16 hardpoints vs. 11). This is a reflection of the fact the JMSDF is facing opponents that are primarily surface navies in their own backyard: China and to a lesser extent South Korea. Bringing up to 5 extra anti-ship missiles is a nice ability to have in that situation. By contrast, most P-8 buyers are using it for hunting subs, and in particular nuclear submarines, as they’re worried more about Russia (or in India’s case, the United States - go figure).
![[UNCUT] เก็บ "สจ.โต้ง" เอี่ยวมาเฟีย รู้ตัวคนบงการ ก่อนสั่งลั่นไก I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 13 ธ.ค.67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/o-J_p62D40w/mqdefault.jpg)
This is one rare aircraft program from launch to completed aircraft that was unusually completed ahead of schedule, under budget but also meets the spec required for why it was made but it probably helps its a 707/727/737 fuselage derivative
Is that even possible?
I think it's entirely down to it being a 737 varient. Boeing has been manufacturing and modifying it for countless decades and in numbers unseen anywhere else in that sector.
Agreed. Wise application of COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf).... if no other items than; production and supply lines and to some extent airframe and engines. But that's a lot less expensive than bespoke, design build.
@@I_am_looking_for_GF Yup it is. I was the Deputy CC at the DoD Plant Office in Tukwila, WA from 2012-2021 (that office is responsible for contract admin, QA oversight and aircraft delivery acceptance testing of the P-8 and the KC-46) and in that time we delivered 135 P-8s to the USN, Australians, Brits and Norwegians. All but two of those aircraft delivered to the warfighter an average 2-4 weeks ahead of schedule. The USN saved enough on these aircraft they were able to add two additional tails to their original buy at no additional cost. Great airplane and great program from start to finish.
Eh. The 767 tanker shows that there's no guarantee.
I cannot underscore how embarrassing it would be for a submarine or ship to get destroyed by a 737.
very doable
Why?
Imagine a 737 with a sub kill marker on the side
Trust me it’s a very capable and reliable weapons platform
It's a submarine hunter derived from 747.
What's so embarrassing about that?
I REALLY like the way this style of aircraft was approached and presented in this video. So many videos that cover these sorts of aircraft just, don't have the 'Simple Flying" vibe to them. I would love to see more like this topic. Tough there has literally not been a single video I've not thoroughly enjoyed!
I’m not sure how Bombardier is expecting aircraft the size of a large private jet is going to be able to directly compete with an aircraft the size of a 737. It seems that they don’t currently manufacture an airframe that is prepared to directly compete with the P-8.
I doubt Bombardier even has the money needed to make a worthy competitor of selection with how much they lost
To be fair, the P-8 is a massive overkill for many countries otherwise potentially interested in a plane of that sort.
@@N1njaSnake Not according to the Air Forces that operate them.
@@N1njaSnake While that may potentially be true, it was Canada's own words that said the P-8 was the ONLY aircraft on offer which satisfied all of their requirements. Bombardier doesn't currently produce an aircraft meant to compete with it, so they're just trying to shoehorn themselves into the conversation simply based on the fact that they're a Canadian manufacturer.
Seeing how the global is already almost done building and has ISR globals. I’m sure they can do it
A few years ago I got to work on building assembly line where they make the wings for P-8. Not far from where we ate lunch they were testing the wings for stress. It's pretty amazing how far those wings could "fold"!
If it helps, Harpoon is an anti-ship missile that the US and its allies have had in inventory for half of forever. P-8 can carry them externally and possibly internally also.
Shame it's STILL `just` a commercial airliner. With all the limitations that entails. An anti-submarine and maritime patrol aicraft should be able to perform a typical Hi-Lo-Hi mission scenario. Try as you might you can't make a case for long-term suitability of an airliner for that job. I predict the Poseidon will run out of fatigue life decades ahead of any in-service requirements, and need hugely expensive re-winging. That said, it will probably need a more general update by then anyway. New avionics, new engines, re-instrumentation in which case any re-winging should just be a.n.other cost factor in the overall cost in what has been a cost-limited operational life.
@@simonevans8979- It is not the same identical airframe as the commercial version you idiot. The P-8 has a strengthened fuselage for low-altitude operations and higher performance wing design… so many idiots in this world…
@@simonevans8979love when people that know very little about something, pretend they’re experts
@@simonevans8979make it obvious you don't know about the military/civilian aircraft blend. That's why we've been doing these same exactly roles based on Boeing variants for decades
Harpoon is at the end of its service life, it will have to be replaced by the LRASM or the NSM
Probably worth mentioning that the additional wingspan is thanks to the addition of 767-400ER/777/787-style raked wingtips, which can only be found on this variant of the 737.
For low cost airlines, the idea of a set of bomb bay doors is attractive. 🤣
some ultra low cost airlines soon will be offering the half-way fare, and those unfortunates can only hope it comes with a couple of parachutes. BOmb bay doors are put to good use with the half way fare.
Awesome Video. would love to see you do a video on the Wedgetail.
I get a lot of 737 maxs flying over my house before landing at sea tac. I’m also in the area from NAS Whitney island. The p8s sound completely different than the delta and Alaska airlines 737s that fly over my house
So what's the commonality percentage? Voice states at 1:23 86% but screen shows 56%?
86% is the official manufacturer’s statement. That said, the figure likely excludes military-specific systems from consideration in order to inflate it for marketing purposes, since those parts obviously have no civilian-model equivalent.
Super nice vid, thanks for sharing. We had the opportunity to walk through one at NASWI in Oak Harbor last year during their open house - impressive piece of machinery. I've flown in dozens of 737s, but none with torpedoes and anti-ship missiles!
I LOVE the P-8. They will occasionally visit my home airport to hang out in the pattern for like an hour. Anytime I see one i go “P-8!!!” And by go I mean I yell it rather loudly. I mean I do the same for B-1s, but P-8s are also super cool, idk why I like them so much, but I do.
I have a soft spot for maritime patrol aircraft, ever since I built a model of the PBY Catalina as a kid. Weird lumpy bumpy things with a boring but important job!
New Zealand has 4 P8 aircraft as of about 5 days ago (not 3). Thanks for the video.
This is a good example where commonality makes sense. It is not about the plane. It is about having a reliable platform to do your stuff. The biggest problem that grounds high performance aircraft is getting spare parts.
"hey there's something on the radar, oh it's just a 737, must've gotten lost, wait DOES THAT THING HAVE TORPEDOS!?!?"
I flew the 737s for years . Great airframe .Perfect for this application
Cool video. You should do one on the RAAF's Boeing Wedgetail.
The P-8 is a very capable airplane but I will always miss hearing the drone of P-3's flying around all day
EXCELLENT video. Thanks very much. The P-8A Poseidon and the E-7A Wedgetail are an excellent COTS (Commercial Of The Shelf) programs. KUDOS for the different nations who are purchasing this airplanes as well as Boeing.
Just came back from school found pizza my mum got me and found a new video by simple flying 😊
It will be very welcome here in NZ as our maritime survailance, search and rescue are the core functions of our defence force and it might prove to be the best procurement decision the defence force has ever made.
P-8 is the type, P-8A and P-8I are the variants. If the USA will ever upgrade her then she will become P-8B. Export customers often get their own letter suffix. It is really simple.
Yeap. Precisely
Canada and the RCAF will be fortunate to have the Poseidon P-8 in its fleet. The Lockheed CP-140 Auroras will continue service during the delivery phase and will compliment the P-8s for many years given the upgrades that have been completed. The Bombardier alternative will no doubt be a capable platform but will be available far too late given operational needs. Many thanks to Canada’s US and 5 eyes allies.
Please do a similar video about the KC135s Please 🙏🏻 💙
So what happens to all these well maintained P-3s now becoming available? The best aircraft I ever flew on was the Lockheed Electra and that is basically a P-3. Smooth comfortable big windows wide body and big sexy propellors for visual stimulation. A memorable aircraft and I have flown in DeHavilland Dragon Rapides, DC-3s, Lockheed Constellations, DC-7C Argonauts, De Havilland Comets, Boeing 707s Twin Pioneers el al. The Electra came out tops.
Is the slight difference in height from the addition of the antenna fairing atop the vertical stabilizer on the P-8, or does the whole aircraft sit slightly higher?
The P-8 is the lower one ;-)
One of the best buys new zealand has ever made it suits our airforce and it's mission brief perfectly
Well, I think it's time for a comparison video. P-8 vs Bombardier vs P-1 vs whatever Embraer has to offer.
I would have said the same however, will all the Air Forces going with the P-8 instead, including Canada, I feel like the writing is on the wall.
It's a genuine frankenplane. It's got civilian origin, military painting, 737 fuselage, and 787 raked wingtips.
Very true! But its super efficient. Its essentially a 737-800ERX
It was designed from the Boeing BBJ - the business jet version of the 737 (like the Wedgetail).
We have just taken delivery of 3 of these here in NZ replacing our p3 orions.
the ONLY reason that Bombardier was even in the conversation is because the prime minister is from Québec and has college buddies in that company.
Great to hear that we ordered more of them. 12 seems barely enough for Germany already.
Anyway, hope to see them soon in service helping to locate ships in danger. :)
Can someone please explain what the red flap/switch on the yoke at @2:31 is? On commercial 737s, this is normally the flight number dials; right and left side of the yoke for Captain and FO respectively.
not sure, possibly to give crew authorization for fire weapons
Nice to see a military jet on this channel:)
A400m next (maybe)
Great looking aircraft
I just spotted a P8A Poseidon flying near southwest of Ukraine on Flightradar 24
10 Jan 2024
Cool. I have a cousin who was the squadron commander of VP 26.
The fifty year old 737 plaform as the foundation of airliners, business jets, VIP transports, trainers, C3ISR and others. It will be interesting to watch developments of the militarized 737 versions as they last 60+ years, as have the 720/707/C-135 series. Is the 737/P-8 the C-135, C-130 of this century? I think so.
There is already a military 737 cargo aircraft, the C-40. Airforce has a whole bunch, navy has a whole bunch, and the marines just got their first. It has a cargo door at the front where stuff can be loaded on pallets. Interior can be easily configured to carry a full load of passengers, a full load of cargo, or a little of both. Aside from a cargo door and built-in stairs front and rear, it's mostly identical to any commercial 737.
Spot on @@kennethmc2601 , there is also the T-43 navigator trainer. About 60 airframes between the two versions.
@@scottnj2503 Also the E-7 Wedgetail
Using a 60+ year old platform is like Russia using T-62 tanks....
Saw these aircraft operated by No. 120 Squadron of the Royal Air Force flying out of RAF Lossiemouth in Moray, Northern Scotland.
So surprisingly, the Indian variant is more equipped than the standard variants? Also, since India uses a mix of Russian and French air assets, compatibility with their communication protocols is a key requirement. Furthermore, the Indian military doesnt use probe-type refuelling system used by the US instead they use the drogue-type system.
The refuelling system system that India, the RAF and the US Navy use is probe and drogue. The alternative (as used by the USAF) is called a boom, not probe.
Also, the P-8I does not come with a toilet, they just shit out of a hole in the back of the plane 😁😁😁
@@AftonAdams and the UK variant comes with extra seats to carry slaves
I think there's a different trade-off between range and functionality. The US version originally had MAD in the requirements but removed it for weight reasons. Not sure about mounting a radar at the back -- it sure sounds like APS-143C(V)3 is yet another SAR/ISAR radar for looking at the sea.
@@vidco2467 Nice comeback mate! @AftonAdams probably doesnt realise that India has a bigger economy than the UK with some big British brands owned by Indian conglomerates.
love the look of the p8
if you are going my looks...Global 6500 looks better. LOL.
Okay now I'm curious. What's the little dangly thing that is hanging off or deploying out of the top of the vertical tailfin?
with the growing success of the P-8I Neptune (Block III) maritime multi mission ASW aircraft . . . wonder, if future ASW aircraft can be based on the B737-900 ER narrow body jet which is a stretched variant of the B737-800 . . .
I was hoping the Kawasaki P-1 (previously P-X, XP-1), Japanese maritime patrol aircraft developed and manufactured by Kawasaki Aerospace Company had been shown for comparison.
Yeah, its the real competition and, to be blunt, it bests the P-8 in pretty much every category. Unfortunately, its more expensive as a result and Boeing/the US have been pretty aggressive in how they want other nations to adopt the P-8, even though it requires very different, newly developed maritime tactics which haven't come about because they are superior, but because the limitations of the P-8 necessitate them.
I'm curious about the comparison to the P-3. Don't turboprops have better efficiency, and therefore range?
They also have a faster power up time. The P-3s run the engines at 100% rpm and the throttle is called a power lever because it increases power and changes prop pitch. Nothing feels better in high sink rate at low altitude over the ocean when the power levers are moved forward with a fast recovery with the turbo props. A jet you have the spool up time lag. I went on a few patrols and went on many detachments in a P-3s about 50 years ago.
@@Chris_at_HomeWhich squadron?
@@charpsteve36 VP-23
at lower speeds and altitudes yes, he actually said a bit of misinfo as the P-8 is more suited towards high/medium altitude and it's sensors allow to to conduct ASW up to angels 25 iirc, this will give it more time on station and a smoother ride for the crews
Yea, I'm a little skeptical about it's capabilities compared to the P-3. The only regime where this thing can loiter and surveil somewhat economically is at altitude, and if you want to deliver a weapon I imagine there is quite a long lead time before you can be at a speed and altitude for accurate delivery. Once down at that altitude, having MAD to nail down the target would seem to be a plus, but as I understand it, the "A" model doesn't even have MAD. I suppose different tactics have had to evolve to accommodate this new breed of ASW aircraft where their transit time to a target area (presumably defined by a SOSUS contact or emerging situation) is much shorter, but their loiter time is severely truncated. On balance I think the P-3 is still a superior platform, but the much shorter missions are probably nice for the crews, and the accountants are undoubtedly happier.
Is the loiter time with both engines or can one engine be shut down?
There are several that fly up to my local airport do pattern work then return to Florida at least 3 times per week.
Should have put up the P3 numbers for comparison
All the P8A are identical regardless of which country is flying them right down to the seat cover colors. It means crews can get in to a P8A and EVERYTHING is identical. If any equipment is changed they all change.
I love how every Air Force that uses p-8a is royal (expect usaf)
Can the radar do maritime, weather and air all at once?
The 737 aircraft has already proved its ability to work in the Canadian Arctic. Commercial companies regularly fly men and equipment to mines and oil exploration rigs across the North.
Note that the RNZAF has just gone operational with four P8As
While the 6500 is still for sale by Bombardier, not sure where it will be built. Shortly, Bomabrdier has to closed its downview plant (the Dash-8 production sold to deHaviland Canada was evicted from it already) and BBD will move into a plant at Toronto Pearson airport. The 7500 fuselage portions are currently made by an Airbus subsidiary (Stelia) at Mirabel QC with final assembly at Downsview (so will be Pearson). Uncertainty about where the 6500 would be made would weight against a serious contract from government.
Ot is easy for a government who doesn't trust a vendor to survive to simply set project requirements to exclude that vendor's proposed product.
Probably off topic..BUT seeing the P8s wings it makes me wonder why Boeing didn’t choose to use those same raked wingtips for the 737 max series?!? I hope that made sense..IMO those wings look more modern versus the winglets(not sure the proper new word for them on the max is) However..those wings look amazing
Longer wingspan. Might have trouble at some airports
@@sidv4615 Not with folding wingtips as it can be included as part of the raked wingtip design when unfolded like with 777X
the winglets used on the max series and the NG series are called schimitar winglets
@@filledwithvariousknowledge2747 adds weight and unnecessary complexity
@@GabbieGirl007 no they’re different. On the 737 MAX they’re spilt wingtips. On the 737 NG they’re Split Schimitars. They’re different. Google it. There’s actually physical difference between them
RAAF here in Australia have 15 P8-A Poseidens
WTF is a Posiden?
@@AftonAdams been corrected 💩head 🤬😡
@@AftonAdamsGreek god of the sea
Ah, for f@ck sake mate, WTF is a Poseiden...
@@AftonAdams A maritime patrol aircraft
I'm not buying 86% commonality. The fuselage has massive changes for the Bombay and structural work to accommodate the maritime environment that are not on the 737. You can see the wing changes and they are significant. In the proposal stage they were supposed to be on the same production line. Maybe 50 percent but I am betting around 25 percent. i could be wrong. Still trying to figure out how to do ASW from 20K feet. As I recall Soviet Yankee sub patrol areas were 1500 miles off the coast and loiter times were 4 hours then. So add an extra 600 miles transit that reduces loiter to? Maybe 3 hours. Anyway it is the new World standard no matter what. Hope they keep sustainment funded and focused.
they can drop the sonar buoys which have datalink, the onboard sensors are very powerful so they can see further
@@gibbo_303 The issue is not monitoring your pattern it is putting the pattern in properly. With a 30 kt wind and a bouy drop from 15K feet you have a high probability of not hitting the point you want or need. Data link, gps dont correct that risk.
Now we need someone to Photoshop this with Ryan air livery 😜
I recall seeing business jet types ( Gulf Stream I think? ) having similar military applications. Smaller so carrying less but I think they have advantages. Maybe I’m missing something about them other than size and institutional/business politics 🤷♂️
One of the purposes of those jets is to act as hostile aircraft or missile attempting to penetrate the battle group during pre deployment training. The jets will launch, fly towards CVN and hopefully get intercepted by friendly aircraft or missiles.
Why no winglets on the P8?
It has bigger wings than standard model so different design requirements. Wikipedia says: The P-8 is unique in that it has 767-400ER-style raked wingtips instead of the blended winglets available on 737NG variants
All I hear is that it wont take a lot of time to switch to Mil production from civ
Shit it takes a month just to push out one fuselage out of shop, compared to a couple days for civy. Compared to civy planes, these bad boys have so much more shit on them its crazy. Nuts and bolts over ever damn inch almost
It appears the P8 is the leader in this category of aircraft. BUT those in Canadian procurement do things that make no logical sense sometimes. I do not know why Canadian Armed Forces feel they always need something different from our allies. I have never figured that out. Hope they choose correctly and buy Boeing.
Then you don't understand just how different Canada's requirements and operational environment are from our allies. In particular the limitations the CAF face
@avroarchitect1793 Every purchase they make has to be tweaked. I think the y forget the US uses this equipment in the far north. Tired of them wasting money just to get something "special". Tons of money wasted and orders dropped because the armed forces can't decide on a viable option.
Canada just confirmed 16 P8's so it's great news for Canada
You forgot the T43,and C40.
Basic explanation of P-8 A vs I:
The P-8I has the highest trim level, but only gets a V6 Engine. P-8A is a lower trim but has a V8.
The P8 is a Wolf in Sheep’s clothing. Badass plane. Sneaky lethality.
I wonder how much if the technology will find its way into the PLA's hands....
Is there a military version of the A319 A320 A321?
Airbus A319MPA , also yeah there are but most are goverment transport aircraft for officials , with minor system changes .
A military version of the new engine option it's called A320 M3A. For the A321M3A you are looking at the Luftwaffe due to them operating one.
A future P-8 variant has to use 737 max 10 as the base airframe P-8B if built
Australian air force fly the A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport, or KC30. The Canadian air force have also been looking at this airframe to replace their aging fleet of CC150 Polaris transport and refueling aircraft.
RNZAF has 4 of these now
Well, Canada confirmed today that they chose the Boeing P-8A Poseidon.
i wonder how theyre gonna land those on the boats
they wont?
What in the hell 😂
1:23
Commentator: "The P8 shares 86% commonality with commercial 737NG..."
Label: "... 56% commonality between P8 and 737..."
My question now is.... Which is which???
The P8 looks like a great aircraft for the CAF. But like anything in Canada, it’s only a matter of time before the Canadian government makes a big mess of things with long drawn out delays and significant cost overruns. Hope it miraculously works out though.
Nope. Its ahead of schedule and under budget, which is extremely rare.
Selecting the Bombardier option would be a Billion dollar boondoggle for Canada 🇨🇦. They should take advantage of the development and production costs already invested by other nations .
Is there an Airbus equivalent? What do the French use?
the french dip their tiny dicks into the water and if a sub brushes past then they know the location
I personally prefer Japanese indiginous Kawasaki P-1 because it can carry more sonar buoy, ammunition, has a MAD sensor and four engines
I think the p8 was chosen because of the mix of fuel efficiency, wide parts availability, and metal body. Basically 3 cost reducers for military usage. Metal reduces cost over composite for specific use cases that seem to have has issues in the 787/a350 such as lightning strikes and delamination events. The lower cumulative flight hours of a military aircraft also make the 787/a350 fuel savings a bit overkill, and the 4 engine systems like the one you mentioned are a bit overkill for a Canadian coast guard plane. Canada has a lot more ground/sea to cover than japan, so when patrolling the arctic they probably want to cut costs.
@@viewer-of-content thanks for explaining
Great plane, however it is not that efficient all, and make the P-8 a more attractive option.
The P-1 can carry only 100 sonobuoys to the P-8’s 129, has a 4-hour loiter radius about 100nmi shorter, and most importantly lacks aerial refueling. Having a MAD is an irrelevant advantage when the P-8 can also have one if its customers choose to spec it. It does have more weapons capacity though.
That Bombardier concept art looks like something a 10 year old would draw on his notebook. Canada would be foolish to even consider such a choice.
It used to be thet military got the latest ad greatest in innovation. Now, they get recyled old aircraft like 767 for tankers, and now old 737 for search. It doesn't ake much sense for Boeing to keep production lines of discontued products going for the military. Shouldn't Boeing be updating the P8 to be based on a 737-8 (MAX) with new engines etc and just install the same gismos on it as it for when converting 737NG to P8 &
With regards to Bombardier, it shoudl at least be pitching a 7500 over the older 6500 to at least keep production lines to a minimum. Also, from a government,s point of view, the lack fo financial future for what is left of Bombardier means it cannot be trusted to deliver the products especially if a long term delivery contract. It does not have the resources to see this project through especiallty if there are delays.
I remember when our navy insisted on MAD , otherwise it quite pointless,when buying P8i... Come to think of it why would the Americans not Install it ???
I would guess the basic Russia/Chinese P-8A complaint is that the Americans know where our subs are but we don't know where theirs are.
7:12 ...Damn, we spend a lot on the military ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Canada cannot order enough copies of a replacement to the CP-140, to make development of a uniquely Canadian surveillance, anti submarine, aircraft economically feasible. Added to this, the integration cost of a “made in Canada” solution would be a night mare - CP-140 should have taught us that! Sorry, but the Boeing Poseidon P8 has over 150 units, already produced and much of the growing pains have been solved, where the cost are now known. As much as I would love to see a Canadian produced military asset, the Air Force is not in the position to lead, or command innovation in military equipment… we, just don’t buy enough.
Not a word about corrosion ?
Military versions of civilian aircraft allways do better due to better quality control, craftsmanship, so yes good call!!!!!!!
My dad work on that plane engine
Bombardier is Pissed 😜
It has the wings of the 737-900 and a ferry range of roughly 8800kms due to the more powerful engines, also people are heavy and this carries less of them lmao
Canada will go to competitive bid...no way Boeing gets a sole source contract. The government won't take the political risk.
I am no fan of the 737, but this is the choice for Canada!
Either commercial or military the 737 is deadly
"flying around in a location" that's called loiter time
As a Canadian I support the P8 decision. Boeing has set the standard, amortized the development cost and their supply chain is solid.
Bombardier's cost per unit would be ridiculous due to the staggering development cost they would incur with the very few they would build, not to mention trying to integrate their system with 5i's. Why reinvent the wheel when an ideal turnkey product is available off the shelf.
They choose right, Bombardier is late to the game. If they had gone with the A220 into military variance before commercial. Which pitted them against Boeing. The might have have a commercial success too. Instead of offloading it to Airbus. And totally loosing out, in a huge market. Obviously they now, us all to feel sorry for them. They took their eyes off the ball. Canadians may be pissed at boeing, during the C220 fiasco. Clearly out played by boeing. Hint... boeing....lol😅😅 Hey Air force! i love those Alectra. Also Porter's dash8-400.
Yeah the Boeing P-8A Poseidon is Boeing's 2nd attempt at a Jet MPA as Boeing had pushed a Boeing 757 MPA in the 1990s and the British had already shown Jet MPAs were possible and the future with the Hawker-Siddeley Nimrod back in the late 1960s
I would prepare a fleet of Global 6500s and P8As you need P8As to head to the north and to the further missions into the Pacific and Atlantic, whereas the 6500 should be better for closer missions
great.....then you have TWO airframes to maintain. O.o
"Boeing's p-8 Poseidon set to boost US anti-ship capabilities with LRASM",and a.i.sh;ts this out...
Boeing needs to sharpen its pencils now and offer a sweet deal before Bombardier's lobbyists start pitching Taylor Swift's tour jet with some IS binoculars on it.
I wonder what the P-8 can, that the Kawasaki P-1 can't, so that it is the only option. I know that due to politics and proximity the Canadians were always more likely to buy a American then Japanese aircraft, just wonder why it was ruled out complete from the beginning, instead of using it to push the price of the P-8 down.
I thought in the Lockheed contract that the kawasakis were not to be sold and only built for japan
@@richcb5 In the articles and videos I saw about the P-1 Japan is looking for international customers and they also have presented the P-1 on several international airshow. So far they just haven't found an international market.
Also the P-1 is an indigenous developed airplane from Japan, I haven't heard that Lockheed is involved. And even when they are involved, why shouldn't they allow it to sell internationally?
If Lockheed is involved and somebody buys it, Lochheed makes some money.
If somebody buys the P-8 their competitor Boeing makes money.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_P-1#Potential_operators
The P-1 has much fewer shared parts with other types and 4 engines, which makes it more expensive to operate. It also carries fewer sonobuoys, lacks aerial refueling capabilities, and has a bit less range innately. In fact, Germany turned it down specifically because it lacked aerial refueling capabilities.
Where it does beat the P-8 handily is weapons load (16 hardpoints vs. 11). This is a reflection of the fact the JMSDF is facing opponents that are primarily surface navies in their own backyard: China and to a lesser extent South Korea. Bringing up to 5 extra anti-ship missiles is a nice ability to have in that situation. By contrast, most P-8 buyers are using it for hunting subs, and in particular nuclear submarines, as they’re worried more about Russia (or in India’s case, the United States - go figure).
The A stands for the first model. How is this not common knowledge on an aviation channel?