Friday, August 7, 2026

Who Needs a Navy When You’ve Got a P-8 Poseidon?

The Navy (and the US military) have received yet another miracle of technology from industry.  Boeing and Northrop Grumman have now simulated (they didn’t actually do anything but simulation is good enough – reality is never an issue) teaming between a manned P-8A Poseidon and unmanned MQ-4C Triton.[1]
 
Boeing and Northrop Grumman successfully simulated teaming between a manned P-8A Poseidon and unmanned MQ-4C Triton … [1]
 
The P-8A cued the Triton transit to a specific area. After receiving the request, the Triton autonomously planned and executed a transit to the area, employed sensors per the tasking, processed findings onboard, and reported results back to the P-8A Poseidon.[1]

So, the unmanned Triton flew to a waypoint and sent telemetry back?  Truly, the stuff of miracle and legend.  I’ve never even heard of “waypoints” … well, except for back in the 1970’s when that was just a routine capability … but to do that in a simulation instead of for real like we’ve done for decades is just a stunning achievement.  How do they come up with this stuff?
 
What does this miraculous development mean for the US?
 
Jane Bishop, vice president and general manager, global surveillance division, Northrop Grumman: “MQ-4C Triton and P-8A are the backbone of the U.S. Navy’s maritime patrol and reconnaissance force, delivering complementary capabilities unmatched by any other platforms. … Our commitment to pushing the boundaries of advanced technology ensures that the U.S. and allied nations operators maintain an unparalleled edge against evolving maritime threats.”[1]

“Unparalleled edge” !!!!  No other country in the world has the ability to fly waypoints and transmit data.  We are light years more advanced than anyone else.
 
This highlights the wonders of the P-8 Poseidon. 
The P-8A Poseidon is the world’s most advanced multi-mission maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft that provides anti-submarine warfare (ASW), anti-surface warfare (ASuW), intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), and search and rescue mission capabilities.[1]

So, …
 
  • ASW
  • ASuW
  • ISR
  • S&R


 
Why do we even need a Navy?  Half a dozen P-8s should suffice to win any war.
 
 
____________________________________

Just out of idle curiosity, is anyone getting tired of these constant announcements about miraculous technologies that have actually existed for decades?  To paraphrase:  Those that can, do. Those that can’t take old technologies and pretend they’re new.
 
I wonder how much we paid to simulate waypoints and data transmission?




____________________________________
 
[1]Naval News website, “Boeing and Northrop Grumman Successfully Simulate P-8A Poseidon and MQ-4C Triton Teaming”, Staff, 6-Aug-2026,
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2026/08/boeing-and-northrop-grumman-successfully-simulate-p-8a-poseidon-and-mq-4c-triton-teaming/
Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

8 comments:

  1. AnonymousAugust 7, 2026 at 8:47 AM

    @CNO - Even John Q Public is revolting against endless advertisements.

    ReplyDelete
  2. SpikedpsychoAugust 7, 2026 at 3:05 PM

    A Boeing 777 makes a perfect bomber.
    With trans continental range, huge fuselage a revolver rack could carry 16-24 air launched cruise missiles or 2-4 wing mounted Hypersonics. Australia navy is not bogged down by 1000 bureaucracy obsessed admirals, run F18s from inland airbases, recently purchased 300+ anti ship missiles. Ask Why US Navy naver adopted idea inland base s like China lake, Miramar, Potomac. Even a 737 extended range could carry them. Operating from inland airbase like California desert or Nevada, fly 500 miles out sea fore payload and return.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsAugust 7, 2026 at 3:17 PM

      "Boeing 777 makes a perfect bomber."

      Variations on this theme have been studied many times and never found to be practical and effective.

      "Operating from inland airbase like California desert or Nevada, fly 500 miles out sea fore payload and return."

      ??? What target is within 500 + 1000 miles of the US coast?

      "Why US Navy naver adopted idea inland base s"

      Navy bases exist to support Navy carriers which are all on the coast so why would naval aviation bases exist inland? That would make no sense.

      Delete
    2. G2milAugust 7, 2026 at 8:58 PM

      737s fly to Hawaii from Conus. A 787ER recently flew 23 hours from Australia to France non-stop.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousAugust 7, 2026 at 9:46 PM

      Spikedpsycho, note that the US Navy does have inland bases. These are specific bases to support specific purposes and missions. You have the Cornfield Cruiser serving as a land-based test installation for Aegis, there's USS Desert Ship which does live fire missile testing and evaluation, and ofc you have NAS Fallon in Nevada where they do Top Gun now.

      The bulk of the Navy's bases are on the coast because, surprise surprise, they're supporting the ships. And where to the ships live? In the water. On the coast.

      Delete
  3. hokie_1997August 8, 2026 at 5:49 AM

    3:24 AM
    The P-8 is one of the few Navy programs that delivered on time, on budget, performing well and delivering a coherent capability the warfighter actually needs.

    But to the author's point(?) I don't think anyone is saying it is a panacea or replacement for surface fleet...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsAugust 8, 2026 at 10:32 AM

      " I don't think anyone is saying it is a panacea or replacement for surface fleet..."

      I have a few beefs:

      1. I'm sick of hearing every weapon system being claimed to be capable of doing everything war function there is when they're not, at least in any real world scenario. For example, can a P-8 launch a missile? Yes. Can it do so in any realistic scenario? No. Any P-8 approaching close enough to get targeting for a missile would have been long since shot down. And so on. If you read the DOT&E reports, the P-8 has significant problems with conducting ISR and radar detection. The Navy was also criticized by DOT&E for not having a high altitude ASW concept of operations. In other words, the Navy doesn't know how a P-8 will even conduct ASW. And so on. The P-8 has a useful role but it's not ASuW, ISR, area search, or S&R to any useful extent.

      2. I'm concerned that the Navy actually is buying into the delusional fantasy that large, slow, non-stealthy aircraft can perform vital functions like area search and target acquisition. These aircraft are going to have a lifespan measured in minutes if they approach any contested air/water areas and yet we appear to be basing much of our combat hopes on them (along with large, unmanned UAVs, E-2s).

      3. Given the above points, I'm concerned that we're spending our money and resources on weapon systems that are less than optimal, to put it politely. For example, the successor to the P-3 should not have been modernized repeat of the P-3 which is what the P-8 is. It should have been a clean sheet design of a stealthy, low altitude, sub hunter that could operate close to (or in) contested air/water and, by doing so, be combat useful. The successor to the LCAC was ... an LCAC. The successor to the Burke was ... a Burke. We've failed so often that we've become afraid to try new designs.

      Delete
  4. AnonymousAugust 8, 2026 at 10:59 AM

    It's honestly weird that the Air Force has almost completely abdicated the martime strike mission to its traditional enemy, the Navy. Every other air force in the world makes some attempt at antiship strike - the Soviets famously had entire regiments of bombers poised to attack USN ships.

    ReplyDelete

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

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)