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.

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?

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

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

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 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!

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.

Yeap. Precisely

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).

if you are going my looks...Global 6500 looks better. LOL.

The P-8 is the lower one ;-)

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.

not sure, possibly to give crew authorization for fire weapons

They’re a regular visitor in the region. It was alleged the Moskava was sunk because of targeting data and route information collected by a P-8A was shared in as close to real time with Ukraine. Russia tried saying it was the direct involvement of the US at the time, saying it turned off its tracker to monitor the ship before returning out of range. Another visitor down there is the Global Hawks, you can tell them apart easy thanks to how much closer they fly to Crimea vs the Commercial air routes.

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....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

Nope. Its ahead of schedule and under budget, which is extremely rare.

they wont?

What in the hell 😂

the french dip their tiny dicks into the water and if a sub brushes past then they know the location

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.

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.

aurora can't cover the same area per hour as the P-8, can't carry as much ordinance, and is in need of replacement and ungrading, hence the P-8

great.....then you have TWO airframes to maintain. O.o