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: , , ,

28 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
    2. ComNavOpsAugust 10, 2026 at 10:33 AM

      "A stealthy, penentrating ASW aircraft is an interesting if highly impractical idea. Air ASW calls for persistence and payload and those both work completely counter to the idea of a stealthy aircraft."

      Hardly! Persistence has no direct effect on stealth. The longer you stay in an area, the greater the chances of being detected, if that's what you're referring to, but that's true of any platform, stealth or not, and the solution to that, for any platform, is wise consideration of the mission requirements. You also noted that I called for a low altitude ASW aircraft. Low altitude decreases the risk of detection. Wise mission parameters and low altitude combined with a stealthy airframe make for a very practical ASW aircraft capable of operating near the front lines where it will be most useful. I'm not suggesting that such an aircraft fly by itself into the middle of the East China Sea. That would be ridiculous. A stealthy ASW aircraft would perform the same role as the old S-3 Viking for carrier groups and would be useful for protecting Guam and other points of interest.

      Payload, too, has no necessary connection to stealth. The B-2/21 bombers carry their payloads internally. Even the S-3 Viking carried its main ASW weapons (sonobuoys and torpedoes) internally. A stealthy ASW aircraft would have an internal payload much like the Viking.

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsAugust 10, 2026 at 10:42 AM

      "I believe we do need a traditional maritime patrol aircraft (P-8 like, for arguments sake) for non-wartime submarine detection, tracking and monitoring."

      For non-war ASW work, it doesn't matter what we do. Anything can work. However, if we're going to conduct peacetime ASW then shouldn't we be doing exactly like we'd do it in war so that develop tactics and technologies that we'll actually use in combat? Train like you fight, fight like you train, right? A basketball team wouldn't practice using a volleyball and then play games with a basketball so why would we practice ASW with a platform we won't use in combat?

      Delete
    4. hokie_1997August 10, 2026 at 11:23 AM

      RE: Non-war ASW. I would really encourage you to read up on Cold War ASW. Norman Frieman's books on the topic are pretty good.

      Peacetime track and trail ops (conducted by P-8s and other Theater ASW assets) are vital to (a) ensure we know where enemy submarines are when the shooting starts and (b) dissuade/limit our enemy's from taking action because they know that we know where we are. That's the real function/vaue of an MPA.

      There's a pretty telling statement from a Soviet admiral following the end of the Cold War. He said that the best way he had to maintain awareness of Soviet submarine locations was by watching where all the P-3s were operating (I'll see if I can find the quote and post it later).

      The implication is that we were 'on-top' of their subs and they wouldn't have much freedom of manuever or probability of survival if/when the actual shooting started. Granted that was back when the Navy had 250-300 P-3s. Numbers have gone down quite a bit which I think is the real problem.

      Delete
    5. ComNavOpsAugust 10, 2026 at 11:32 AM

      "Peacetime track and trail ops (conducted by P-8s and other Theater ASW assets) are vital"

      Did someone suggest that peacetime tracking of enemy subs was not a good idea? Who was it? Tell me and I'll rip 'em a new one. It's not you and I know it wasn't me so who was it?

      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
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsAugust 8, 2026 at 4:17 PM

      I somewhat agree with you to a heavily modified degree. You note that the Soviets dedicated regiments of bombers to anti-ship attack, however, you must also note that the Soviets had no aircraft carriers. Thus, they had no other choice but long range bombers (cruise missile shooters) to attack American carriers. Our situation is nowhere near the same as the Soviets.

      You would also note that the Soviets faced dozens of US carriers whereas the US, until very recently, faced none so anti-ship was not quite as big a priority for us.

      So, yes, it would be nice if we actually had an air launched anti-ship missile in any significant quantity and, yes, it would be nice if both the Navy and AF had aircraft that could carry/launch it.

      All that said, note, further, that we do have the B-2/21 bomber which can carry large quantities of anti-ship missiles such as the LRASM, AGM-158 JASSM, and others so the AF is not exactly bereft of anti-ship capability.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousAugust 8, 2026 at 5:40 PM

      Yeah, but if we look historically, the B-2 force is small, less than 18 aircraft, and total procurement of the B-21 force is projected around 100 airframes.

      Meanwhile, at the peak of the B-52 force, out of 744 aircraft built, we had only 2 squadrons - a mere 24 aircraft - that were assigned to maritime strike and naval mining, which is honestly a little mind boggling. (Kinda begs the question why did we even bother to adopt a mission and give it to just 2 squadrons.)

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsAugust 8, 2026 at 6:18 PM

      You're not grasping the concept. For the Soviets, their air force (it wasn't, actually, it was naval air regiments) was the MAIN weapon against our carriers. For the US, naval strike (meaning anti-ship) was the responsibility of the Navy so the AF didn't need to have much of an anti-shipping capability. It simply wasn't a main mission of the AF. Anti-ship was a secondary (if that) mission for the AF as an occasional supplement to naval anti-ship.

      Given the recent reduction in carrier numbers and air wing size, one could legitimately re-examine the relative mission taskings but, historically, the AF anti-ship capacity has probably been about right.

      Please don't make me repeat this.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousAugust 8, 2026 at 9:09 PM

      Other anon also forgets that the B-52 force's primary mission was nuclear strike, forming the airborne component
      of our nuclear triad. Conventional maritime strike, while useful, was a sideshow.

      And at the end of the day, the way our air force intended to fight precluded them meeting with ships. They were always going to be doing penetration strikes into enemy bacckline or securing air superiority over the battlefieldnin support of the Army's operations on the frontline.

      Ships can't live on the Fulda Gap.

      Delete
  5. G2milAugust 9, 2026 at 7:34 AM

    Navy in Crisis
    US Navy families are demanding answers over the prolonged USS Abraham Lincoln deployment during the Iran war, raising concerns about mental health, exhaustion and living conditions aboard the carrier. Around 200 relatives confronted senior Navy leaders in San Diego as the Lincoln reached 259 days deployed, including 208 consecutive days at sea. Families reported problems involving food, mail, bathrooms, suspected mold, water and safety. Navy officials acknowledged logistical difficulties and the strain on sailors and their families but offered no confirmed return date. The USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group is being prepared to eventually relieve the Lincoln, but the timeline remains undisclosed.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f08oWkZjfAA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ExJuniorSailorAugust 9, 2026 at 11:28 AM

      I think that a lot of this reporting is politically motivated. But I also question how real these "shortages" are. Yes we all know that our logistics fleet isn't what it should be, no doubts... but are you telling me that the US Navy can't keep a couple CVBGs in the same theatre properly supplied? I did multiple Med deployments, and remember how ships would either transit the Red Sea or unload supplies at Port Said, Egypt and supplies would be trucked down to either be received in port or be loaded back aboard another auxilliary that was tasked with deliveries via UNREP in the Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean ops areas etc. Keeping multiple CVBGs fed and supplied was an everyday thing, and our ship alone would provide thousands of pallets of food and other supplies, while oilers and ammo ships would provide the rest, although we did also have the ability to refuel escorts. Sure, a carrier and escorts would heavilly deplete fresh veggies and pre-made bread, and we'd dash off to a nearby port to refill those stocks afterwards, but nobody ever went hungry, and keeping ships in the Med AND in the Red Sea area simultaneously supplied was routine and no big deal. Sometimes we were tasked to accompany a carrier, and would tag along for a week or so, then be released without ever doing any resupply, having been there "just in case". So I'm struggling to believe these reports. As far as conditions aboard ship, moldy showers etc... thats just the crew not doing their job. Cleaning aboard ship is everyones duty, every day. Long deployment or not... it sounds like discipline and order might be breaking down... and that's on the Navy and leadership for being soft and relaxing standards. The fact that sailors are crying to their families, who are then making a public spectacle of things, to me shows an absolute lack of discipline and control by the chain of command, and that today's sailors are soft. They're in the hottest, most involved combat action the Navy has seen for over a half century... but the headlines are "My kid isn't getting fed, and his/her shower is gross"... sad.

      Delete
    2. ComNavOpsAugust 9, 2026 at 11:42 AM

      Great comment. I have no idea about the veracity of the reports but, if true, they don't surprise me. Recall at the start of the Ukraine-Russia war when the US attempted to send a MEU (not sure what the plan was for them but that's a separate issue) and the Navy, with a fleet of around 33 amphibs at the time, was unable to provide three ships for the MEU. That was a major embarrassment for the Navy and spoke to just how poorly managed the maintenance side of things was. So, if the Navy is having trouble finding ships for resupply, it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

      Delete
    3. G2milAugust 9, 2026 at 12:38 PM

      Keep in mind that the US Navy's supply hub for that region is at Bahrain! The closest other hub is in Singapore. Is the Navy taking steps for a long-term solution? All I see is insane talk about spending a billion dollars to rebuild the base at Bahrain.

      I need to do a vid about this, but there are few good choices. Expanding US Navy shore support at Perth and Kenya seem like the best options. The Navy has a new small one at Duqm in Oman and one in Saudi on the Red Sea would be good, mostly for cheap refueling, but don't want to go big at these places since they are within Iranian and Yemini missile range.

      Anyone have other ideas?

      Delete
    4. ExJuniorSailorAugust 9, 2026 at 3:16 PM

      Really it comes down to getting supplies from the Sixth fleet in the Med, and whether they are sailed through the Suez Canal and Red Sea, or offloaded and trucked south to Fifth fleet for other delivery/pickup methods. With the exception of the minimal Houthi threat, it shouldn't be that hard to rotate ships from the Med down to the groups operating for Centcom. The travel time from Souda Bay or a number of other easy well stocked resupply ports, perhaps even Haifa, down through the Canal and to the battle groups isn't that long. A constant rotation of just 2 supply ships would suffice, possibly excepting fuel...

      Delete
    5. ExJuniorSailorAugust 9, 2026 at 3:22 PM

      And btw... this very situation is absolutely showing the folly of having decommissioned two of the Supply-class ships- whose capacity and speed would be hugely useful in the current situation ( if in fact the Navy is struggling to keep two carriers supplied, which I'm not sure is actually the case). Those two ships should absolutely be brought back into service.

      Delete
    6. ExJuniorSailorAugust 9, 2026 at 3:51 PM

      So basically, two supply ships in rotation from the Med, and one oiler from Oman could suffice. Three supply ships and two Oilers would add overlap and excess capacity, and hedge against any delays/breakdowns etc.
      And while this is a different scenario than when I was there, note that we kept two battle groups supplied at the same time- one in the Med, and one in the Gulf of Oman, via offload in Egypt and truck shipping...

      Delete
  6. G2milAugust 9, 2026 at 7:43 PM

    Access to the Red Sea is currently blocked by the Houthis, which is part of the current problem. Egypt can deny use of the Suez canal or a few missile hits can block it.

    I agree that more supply ships are also the answer as our entire sealift fleet has fallen in half the past two decades. The Sealift command docked several ships early this year due to a lack of crews. People talk about employing a four-carrier task force to fight China. I doubt our Navy has the supply ships to support four at sea in WestPac. The problem is that procuring supply ships is far less profitable for our military industry and their buddies in Congress.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ExJuniorSailorAugust 9, 2026 at 9:04 PM

      Much like the Hormuz Strait, if it's "closed", it's only because we allowed it to be. There's no reason that the Houthis are potentially keeping the USN out of the Red Sea. If we need to reengage them, so be it. It's not like we aren't already in a shooting war or anything...
      Why would Egypt deny us the use of the canal, especially with the administration we have now? In a heartbeat they'd be so sanctioned and embargoed that they'd have to take out a second mortgage on the Pyramids. And as far as missiles blocking it... when did we get so risk-averse? The Navy has seemingly proven that they can defend themselves over the past couple years, and if we need to escort some logistics ships to keep our carriers in action, so be it.

      Delete
    2. ComNavOpsAugust 10, 2026 at 10:38 AM

      "Access to the Red Sea is currently blocked by the Houthis"

      We've already seen that the Houthis are incapable of militarily "closing" anything unless we allow them to. The Navy did just fine against the occasional Houthi drone launches and that was without making any serious attempt to stop the launches at the source. We are more than capable of safely escorting supply ships anywhere.

      Delete
  7. G2milAugust 10, 2026 at 9:57 PM

    An interesting discussion of our outdated US military.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FDelB9nvJE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ExJuniorSailorAugust 12, 2026 at 1:07 AM

      ...couldn't even watch it all. Politically slanted drivel.

      Delete

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

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)