It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Deficiencies found in P-8 Poseidon

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 08:04 PM
The DoD Office of Test and Evaluation has found "deficiencies" in the P-8 Poseidon, which is scheduled to replace the P-3 Orions in the US Navy. Unspecified problems were found in the aircraft radar, sensor integration, and data transfer. They went on to say that the aircraft is not effective in the ISR, and wide area submarine search mission, under realistic combat testing.

The OT&E for the aircraft took place between September 2012, and March 2013. The US Navy just deployed several aircraft to Japan in their first operational deployment. The Navy has said that they are a big improvement over the current P-3 fleet. The US Navy currently has 13 of the 113 ordered, and the Australian Air Force is looking at the aircraft to replace their AP-3C aircraft as well.

The office of the US Dept of Defense’s office of test and evaluation has found the Boeing P-8A Poseidon isn’t yet mission effective and has some key “deficiencies” in its systems.
The section on the P-8 in the office of T&E head, Dr Michael Gilmore’s annual report into major programs was based on operational testing of the aircraft conducted between September 2012 and March 2013, and found problems with the aircraft’s radar performance, sensor integration and data transfer.
In the report, Gilmore said that “Many of these deficiencies” led him to determine the P-8A “is not effective for the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance mission, and is not effective for wide area anti-submarine search” when subject to realistic combat testing.

posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 08:08 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58

That's a pretty damning summation. What do you think is gonna happen now? Do you think the Navy's gonna take delivery of deficient product?

posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 08:09 PM
reply to post by Snarl

The Navy has, to date, had nothing but good to say about the aircraft. Based on their history with the Freedom in the LCS program though, they'll keep taking them and spend a ton of money on fixing them later.

posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 08:36 PM
Sound like teething problems to me. Software problems are always a pain, it's the hardware that causes the real worries. Pretty much all new weapons platforms take time to work out the bugs. The p51 was an awful fighter until it got a new engine, the m16 was a jamming piece of junk until the techs sorted it out.
I've read that the operators like the ride better than the p-3, no puking...

posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 08:43 PM
reply to post by Hoosierdaddy71

There are teething problems, which are understandable, and there is "We can't complete the mission that the platform was designed for", which is what this falls under. Teething problems wouldn't surprise me in the least. It's the fact that the ASW mission was one of the highlighted areas that worries me, since that's the primary mission of the aircraft.

posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 09:05 PM
I was aircrew on P3C for 6 of the 8 years I was in the Navy. The Orion is a formidable ASW platform, and really still is.
The Navy has said that despite the current bugs, the P-8 is still more effective than the Orion, and that is a good thing.

The Orion went through many updates before they got it all right, and I would expect the same thing to happen with the P-8 Poseidon.
If you knew the complexity of the electronics in these machines and the power of it's weapons, you would understand why there will always be bugs and updates for them, however they are still the best ASW platforms ever built.

posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 09:08 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58

The f 22 took three years to be operational after first delivery.

On 12 December 2007, General John D.W. Corley, USAF, Commander of Air Combat Command, officially declared the F-22s of the integrated active duty 1st Fighter Wing and Virginia Air National Guard 192d Fighter Wing fully operational, three years after the first Raptor arrived at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia.[197] This was followed by an Operational Readiness Inspection (ORI) of the integrated wing from 13 to 19 April 2008; it was rated "excellent" in all categories, with a simulated kill-ratio of 221–0.[198] The first pair of Raptors assigned to the 49th Fighter Wing became operational at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, on 2 June 2008.[199]

I would say it was unable to preform its intended duty wouldn't you? Why is the p8 any different?

posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 09:16 PM
reply to post by Hoosierdaddy71

Because it passed OT&E. Yes, it took three years to go operational, but it was planned that way. The key there is that they were delivered, but took three years to be declared operational, meaning they weren't deploying and flying active missions. The P-8 has already been declared operational, even with the problems that were just identified.

posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 09:35 PM
I also think that there is a great deal of "read between the lines" in these test center results.

This is a very expensive aircraft, and it is going to need a great deal of money to maintain it, let alone updated it. In these times of Military cutbacks, no Admiral is going to say that the bird is in perfect shape.

It has achieved combat readiness and operational status, that is a hell of a lot of check marks in the engineering space, but that list is going to grow once the fleet is 100% delivered, and the money just has to be there to ensure its viability.

posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 09:42 PM
This paragraph was also in the ops link.

Chicago-based Boeing last month delivered the 13th of what’s to be a 113-aircraft program. The Navy in November declared the aircraft ready for combat deployment after determining the criteria for performing effective patrols “were fully met,” Lieutenant Caroline Hutcheson, a Navy spokeswoman, said in a telephone interview.

“The P-8A was ready, was needed in theater and continues to more than meet fleet commanders’ expectations,” she said. Hutcheson said Gilmore’s office has “consistently highlighted both effective warfare areas as well as recommendations for areas to re-visit.”

“Most issues cited have been collectively identified,” and the Navy has developed “software upgrades to correct deficiencies,” she said.

Boeing spokesman Charles Ramey said in an e-mailed statement that he hadn’t seen Gilmore’s report and was unable to comment directly.

Sound like Gilmore was pleased up until now so we will have to see how this turns out.

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 09:36 PM
It takes 8 to 10 years from first design to operational.

During this time many improvements in equipment come along and though the military would like to have the latest and best equipment this is not going to happen with the first aircraft off the line.

In most cases the manufactures bid on the plans 5 years before the first aircraft becomes operational.

This bid was on plans at the time. Any changes are extra and may not even be on the first aircraft if they are too far along on the build.

posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 02:29 AM
reply to post by ANNED

It has been about that long. When the military declares it operational it should be able to perform the basic mission.

new topics

top topics


log in