Sunday, June 29, 2014

P-8A and MAC

The P-8A Poseidon has been routinely held up as an example of a well run and technically successful program.  Let’s take a closer look at the technical aspects of the program.  To an extent, this is a familiarization article intended to assist in future ASW and surveillance discussions.  A better understanding of the P-8’s role and effectiveness will enhance the quality of our discussions.

The P-8 is the replacement for the venerable P-3C Orion.  It is tasked with ASW, surveillance, and surface warfare mainly from a support perspective. 

One of the major technical tools that will be employed is the Multi-Static Active Coherent (MAC) sonobuoy system.  Very briefly and simply, the MAC is an acoustic search system, like the traditional sonobuoys, that uses a single noise source buoy and multiple receiver buoys.  In contrast, the traditional active sonobuoys use a single buoy that is both the noise source and the receiver.  By using multiple receivers, the MAC system can, theoretically cover more volume and provide greater sensitivity since the sound echoes can be correlated over multiple receivers.  Of course, this requires a great deal of sophisticated analysis software and a high degree of operator skill to interpret the results.  If successful, the MAC will confer the ability for the P-3/8 to conduct wide area ASW searches.

So, how are the MAC system and P-8 doing?  Here’s what the 2013 DOT&E annual report has to say.  Regarding the MAC system, itself,

“Preliminary operational test results indicate that the MAC system provides P-3C aircraft with some limited wide-area ASW search capability in select scenarios but it falls short of what the fleet identified as the capability they need to protect high value units. Initial testing revealed unexpected performance shortfalls that are still being investigated.”

“The data also suggest operators are only able to recognize a small
fraction of the valid system detections as targets.”

For the P-8,

“Based on IOT&E results, the P-8A Increment 1 system provides maritime patrol mission capabilities similar to the legacy P-3C system in selected mission areas, but it is not effective for executing the full range of mission tasks required by the P-8A Increment 1 concept of operations.”

“The P-8A Increment 1 system provides effective small- area, cued Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) search, localization, and attack mission capabilities similar to the legacy P-3C system. Fundamental limitations in current sensor technology restrict search capabilities against more stressing adversary targets, making the P-8A not effective in some mission scenarios. The P-8A does not have an equivalent broad-area ASW acoustic search capability similar to that provided by the P-3C Improved Extended Echo Ranging system.”  Ed. Note:  Improved Extended Echo Ranging is the previous version of MAC

“In fact, current P-8A ASW search capabilities provide only a small fraction of what is needed for most Navy operational plans.”

“P-8A non-acoustic search capabilities are also very limited for evasive targets attempting to limit exposure to detection by radar and other sensors.”

“The P-8A is effective in conducting unarmed Anti-Surface Warfare (ASuW) missions against maritime surface targets. The radar and supporting sensor systems provide an effective, all-weather surface target search, detection, and classification capability at short to medium ranges for all maritime surface targets and at longer ranges for larger target vessels.”

“The P-8A is not effective for the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) mission. Radar performance deficiencies, sensor integration problems, and data transfer system interoperability shortfalls degrade imagery intelligence collection and dissemination capabilities.”

“P-8A aircraft flight performance meets or exceeds operational requirements and fully supports execution of the ASW, ASuW, and ISR concept of operations. The system provides increased range, payload, and speed compared to the legacy P-3C aircraft.”

A mixed bag.  What is the takeaway from this? 

On a general note, this yet again demonstrates that the claimed capabilities of new platforms are never fully met.  This should inform F-35 discussions, among other programs, where supporters jump totally on board with every claimed capability.

P-8A Poseidon

The P-8 is, currently, capable of short range ASW searches but lacks a broad area search capability.  The MAC system may, eventually, provide a broad area search capability but not for the near to moderate future.  Its general intelligence and surveillance capabilities are limited.  Software is often the limiting factor and is often the critical failure point in modern systems.  Again, this is seen in the F-35 program and needs to be kept firmly in mind when discussing any system.

The general conclusion is that the P-8 will offer a degree of ASW support but will not have a decisive impact on operations for the near to moderate future.  Of course, the incorporation of future improvements, including, hopefully, the MAC system, may well increase the usefulness of the P-8 over its lifetime.

Not surprisingly, the preceding suggests that ASW will continue to be a collaborative effort among multiple platforms.  Given the area and volume of the ocean(s), and the limited search effectiveness of any single platform, the most glaring ASW need is for greater numbers of platforms of all types.  In turn, this suggests that the demise of the LCS in its current form (one of which supposedly being an ASW version) leaves a gap in the Navy’s surface force ASW capability.  Some will answer that the Burkes will fill the ASW role but no sane person is going to risk a multi-billion dollar, undertrained Burke playing tag with a submarine.  The Navy needs a cheap, low end, dedicated ASW vessel as well as an S-3 Viking replacement to complement the P-8 and SSN force.  Let that be the takeaway for future discussions!


  1. Large Sigh;

    Another overpromised, underperforming, and more expensive system. No wonder the DoD Flag Officers have to go to work for Defense Companies, NO ONE ELSE would hire folks witha track record of cost overruns on systems that DO NOT WORK AS PROMISED!

    Anyone have cost comparison data between the P3 and P-8. Just cost of the airframe and operating them. The cited report says they provide about the same operational performance.

  2. But at least its not catching on fire at takeoff.....

  3. This was actually a dirty secret that many in the maritime patrol community knew but might not have been widely advertised. One way of locking a program down for successful execution is to limit requirements/scope creep. At some point, the P-8A program capabilities were locked while improvements continued with the P-3C program. That means a baseline P-8A is likely less capable than an upgrades USN P-3C because the upgraded USN P-3C includes capabilities that will be introduced to the P-8A as part of the P-8A upgrade program.

    This is an example in which the P-8A program is damned if they do and damned if they don't. If additional capabilities were continuously introduced during the development phase and the program cost increased and the schedule stretched to the right, the program would be chastised for those failings. But by introducing a platform that does not have all the capabilities of the legacy platform, the program is chastised. In this case, you have to take a step back and look at the upgrade program for the P-8A and see the roadmap that uses the P-3C to help mitigate some development risk by initially introducing capability such as MAC and then transitioning that capability to the P-8A, and then see the P-3C upgrade programs sunset as more P-8A platforms are delivered and squadrons transition away from the P-3C.

    - interestedparty

    1. IP, that's a very nice explanation of the methodology of the technology introduction. I have no problem, whatsoever, with that type of approach. It gives us a new P-8 that has at least a basic level of functionality and offers a responsible path to greater capabilities.

      Good comment! Informative. Thanks.

  4. Active P-8A NAC operator. The plane was initially over sold to upcoming aircrew. As in the system will do all this for you without thinking. Once properly trained with mixed bag knowledge the P8A crews would far exceed expectations in short order. As follow on technology is incorporated, the P8A will be a worthy replacement to the much loved and appreciated P3C.

    1. If you are a P-8 crew, I'd love to have a guest post from you about the aircraft and mission in general - nothing classified. Let me know if you're interested.


Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.