How the U.S. made Portuguese P-3C "Orion" detected Russian B-608 Mozhaysk? 

Too bad the AI narrator of this video does'nt know that the P-3C stopped carrying the B57 nuclear depth bomb in the early 90's.

I totally get the loyalty to a machine you have that level of experience with but in terms of actual capabilities and functionality what are your thoughts on the P-8? Do you think they should have gone with the Kawasaki P-1 instead? The Orions are getting olddddd so something has to replace them

@@cruisinguy6024 the P-8 in my opinion is a terrible replacement. Many of my colleagues were involved in the development and testing of the aircraft and so many were upset with the program office. Almost every time they would note a deficiency the program office would change the testing or entirely remove a milestone. One of the main issues is the inability to get down and low to track a sub, the main mission of the P-3. When the P-8 stayed higher and dropped buoys they were breaking upon water impact from the increased height. So they had to develope new buoys at $$$. Same with torps. The program office decided chasing subs wasn’t a big need so many milestones were deleted. Now Ruzzia is going to sea again and my colleagues are going “I told you so”. There are many other stories but the most important one is where did the senior leaders hip go when they retired? Walked right into Boeing.

@@kaptainkaos1202 when I heard the 737 platform was picked as the replacement my immediate thought was about low altitude loitering so it’s validating to see that’s a major issue you have with it. What do you think would have been a better replacement airframe?

@@cruisinguy6024 the Japanese Kawasaki platform would have been a great platform. I’ve seen it’s had some issues but they pale in comparison to the P-8. As a second runner I would have picked the Lockheed upgraded P-3 platform. New airframes, the new prop very similar to the C-130J and E-2D and over twice the electrical generating capacity of the P-8. It had insufficient electrical from day one since it was a passenger plane derivative. My first assessment of the P-8 on its assembly line left me so upset. High capacity APU electrical feeders running mostly unprotected from aft to forward on the bottom centerline of the airframe just waiting to be damaged. Oh and those feeders ran underneath the fuel tanks at the lowest point, like where fuel fumes accumulate. My group was removed from inspections of the new aircraft at the request of Boeing to the program office due to our many critical safety findings. The got another government entity who’s main job is contract enforcement to do the inspections. My group wouldn’t sign off on the flight clearances so the program office decided they’d accept the risk. I could go on with first hand stories not as told to me. I’ll retire this year as a flight test engineer and I NEVER once compromised my standards on safety or ethics unlike many at the P-8 program office.

It’s not that, what it is is there posting it. They’ve track that from day one.

I remember going to one of my buddies house in Barbers Point, HI in the early 80’s. As a doorstop he had what looked like a bell clapper in a heavy metal frame. It was about 18” long and about 12” across. The frame had heavy magnets in the frame. He was an acoustic operator on helicopters and had acquired it in the mid 70’s. He said they take 4-5 of them on ASW missions. If the sun was shallow they position the helo in front of the projected path and drop them. When the things was descending thru the water if it hit the sub it would attach itself to the sub. This was before titanium hulls. As the sun was going thru the water if all went well dropping the thing the clapper would go “BONG BONG BONG” hitting the hull. He said you could easily track the sub until a Ruzzian would get into the water to remove it. Supposedly the Ruzzian MOD told the USN if they do it anymore they’d consider it an act of war.

@@kaptainkaos1202😂😂😂 I question the authenticity of that but it sure is a great story

That's funny

Wouldn‘t a ordinary Cessna have made it as well? 😂

@@christophggcyrus6861 No, a Cessna would not work. They don't have the latest in look-down window technology.

@@Lyle-In-NO 😉😁

Reputable technology sources put it at 3950. Using Wikipedia as a technical source is not the best idea.

In the 80s and 90s, radar coverage was basically no-existent Today , there are very few dead spot where radar cant reach P-3s only had radar mounted in nose in the past, today they have various mounted underneath which allows them see 360 degrees hundreds of miles away So likely, the Kilo was trying hide in a radar dead spot however the P-3 was covering the area with its radar and detected it Diesel subs have to periodically come shallow or surface and they run the risk of getting caught

That's your best hope, lol. Copium is addictive.

@@rightiswrongrightiswrong806 go check the condition of the russian sub that recently went to Cuba, if you're not a bot!