Talk:Boeing P-8 Poseidon/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

UK/US

On one hand, it's too bad BAE felt that politics were against them. I think the US and UK should sign some sort of an agreement regarding their defense industry, allowing zero restrictions regarding purchasing or technology sharing. After all, there are a few companies on both sides of the pond with mixed US/UK shareholding. Northrop on the US side, BAE and RR on the UK side, just to name a few. On the other side, I think the Nimrod is a suboptimal platform, and it was time for a new start. Using a 737 platform is all the better, because you get a good commercial support base. -Joseph 19:07, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)

I'd have to agree, but I think the technology transfer problems they're having with the F-35 is a far more concerning state of affairs. While the Nimrod upgrade (to a basically all new airframe) is marginally justifiable for the UK I would agree that the USN was right to go for a 737 platform entirely tailored to their needs. I found your contribution regarding Italy very interesting - and its just made me realise what a good hand Boeing now has, the commonality of its 737 MMA and AEW&C platforms. Mark 13:09, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It's too bad the UK ASTOR program wasn't on a 737--that'd be quite a powerful trio. I suppose it's not too late to do it. -Joseph 19:30, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)
The aircraft itself might have been desirable (cabin width etc.) but part of the ASTOR spec. was high altitude, which narrowed the field to business aircraft. The 737 ceiling is 35,000ft, the 767's 40,000ft. The Global Express flies at a maximium 51,000ft. I suppose there's nothing to stop another air force ordering the Raytheon radar on the 737 - but would rather have the greater radar range capabilities offered by the Global Exp. Mark 17:04, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Indian P-8As

In the Business Standard article (http://www.business-standard.com/bsonline/storypage.php?bKeyFlag=BO&autono=15447) the sentence "The company has also invited India to be its development partner" made me wonder. Does anyone know what "development partner" in this context entails?

Development partner means Boeing wants a good working relationship with India so they can customize the plane to India's needs. Frmorrison (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

maru (talk) contribs 04:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it, changing link to http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/mma/index.html --rogerd 05:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Poseidon

Aircraft has a name now -- the P-8A Poseidon XPav 04:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Manufacturer

According the link in the Infobox, the Manufacturer is a company or individual involved building, etc. the hardware. The company, Boeing is the manufacturer. Boeing Commerical Airplanes and Integrated Defense Systems are not companies. They are business units within Boeing. This should be simple enough to understand.. -Fnlayson 22:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is taking the instructions too literally. Anyone clicking on that link would be looking for more information regarding similar products or the associated facilities or business information. Taking them to the main Boeing link would reveal a lot of info about Boeing in general. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. Boeing's airliners have Boeing Commercial Airplanes as their manufacturer. Their military products ought to follow suit. --Scott Wilson 22:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hardly suprising that I agree with the two comments above since I challenged the removal of Boeing IDS. Also it's my understanding that although Boeing IDS' legal status is that of a "business segment", BCA is a fully registered company. Mark83 23:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You have a source that says BCA is currently a legal company? -Fnlayson 23:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
For that matter, parts of IDS is still a legal company. For instance, many IDS contracts are between the Department of Defense and McDonnell Douglas Corporation. The P-8 is actually one such contract. Just look at the caption on the second image in the P-8 article for proof. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 02:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Basing and Armaments??

Will the P-8 be carrier based like its predecessor, or just land based? Also, will it be armed like the P-3?147.145.40.44 20:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

P-3 was never carrier based as far as I know! P-8 most definetly won't be either. Mark83 21:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The Lockheed P-3 Orion was land-based, and never, ever landed on a carrier. The S-3 Viking, also by Lockheed, was designed for carrier-based ASW. Given that both have "3" in the name, were made by Lockheed, and carried out ASW missions, the confusion is understandable. As to armaments, yes, the P-8 will be armed, with a weapons bay in the rear fuselage and 2 or 4 hardpoints on the wings for weapons carriage. I assume it will carry the same weapons as late-model P-3Cs, with newer weapons as they become available. Hope this helps. - BillCJ 21:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It can't be carrier based. It's derviative of a land based 737 and will be too big for a carrier anyway. Good question on weapons. The Navy MMA page mentions a bomb bay and 6 weapons stations. -Fnlayson 21:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Many in the P-3 community still believe that a jet aircraft cannot accomplish the mission. Skeptics believe that the 737 cannot fly slow enough to maintain a pattern for sonobouy sweeps. Rumor has it that the bomb bay weapon delivery will not work. Nor will the sonobouy delivery system. Not to mention the fact that a P-3 can be on station twice as long as the P-8, the P-3 can fly up to 18 hours. The fact is that the Navy (pilots) wanted a jet aircraft to take over for the P-3. It makes it a lot easier for aircrews to transfer over to civilian airliner jobs.

The P-7 would have been a better choice but Lockheed Martin’s inability to produce a prototype and over budgeting lost the company's opportunity for a major project. Rv192 (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

All that performance spec info may be true.... but at the moment it is at best speculation, and somewhat unsubstantiated rumour.
Re on-station time.... the P-3 can be on-station twice as long? Based on what distance to base? The P-8 argument was that they could get on-station quicker, and thus rotate crews through quicker - achieving the same overall on-station coverage as the current P-3 fleet.
Re Pilot's wanting jobs.... sorry - but that is just laughable - P-3 pilot's have no problems getting jobs now with turbo-prop experience, and to think that they would bias a project like this for that reason? please... PalawanOz (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia does not do rumor and speculation. If you can find a valid reference for those claims, it could be added in a neutral, balanced manner. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

P-8 Poseidon Pics on Navy News Service = Public Domain or not?

Navy News Service has several images of the P-8A. Pic 1. Pic 2. Pic 3. Pic 4. Before I downloaded one of them, I noticed it was tagged Photo courtesy Boeing/Released So is the photo techniclly still under Boeing Copyright, or has Boeing irrevocably given up the picture rights to the US Navy? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, they are still marked as Boeing copyrighted photos. That does not change when copied to a US gov server. If the image were marked US Navy or some other US gov agencies they would be public domain. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
A simple no would've sufficed. You didn't have to be pushy and get on my case about it. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't getting on yours or anybody's case. Was just trying to explain. A simple no would look like I was being short with you. Thanks for taking the time to ask first. In a similar situation, we lost several F-35 Joint Strike Fighter images last year that were on a .mil server. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

How about:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/theboeingcompany/10925283925/ "Boeing provides this photo for the public to share."

Hcobb (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

MAD weight

I question the statement that elimination of the MAD system will reduce the AC weight by 3500 lbs. That figure strikes me as very high. (I operated the ASQ-8 and ASQ-10 systems) LorenzoB (talk) 04:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The wording says removal of the MAD is a part of the 3,500 lb weight reduction target. That is not cited. I'll see what I can find on it. I think I have read about that before. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Ya, the MAD removal isn't the full 3500 lbf reduction. - SidewinderX (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sub Sniffer

Why delete the Sub Sniffer(t.m.) ref? Without MAD it's the only onboard sub finder left. Should we ask The Navy to just delete the system and not bother chasing after subs anymore? Hcobb (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ever heard of sonobuoys?? And thanks for putting that info in the main text. That's where it belongs, and I should have thought of placing it there myself. - BilCat (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
You can't just litter the oceans with sonobuoys, Greenpeace would throw a fit. You use MAD (or it this case the Sub Sniffer(t.m.) to find the general area the sub may be in then you drop a few sonobuoys to fix a torpedo kill box. Hcobb (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Litter - Sonobuoys are built to scuttle, either on radio command (certain models) or from the decay of a plug in salt water after a few days (all models). They sink to the bottom of the ocean. Technically, that's still litter, but compared to the mass of other stuff tossed overboard from merchant shipping it's probably negligible. In any case, I would suspect that the number of sonobuoys deployed today is probably substantially lower than the numbers during the Cold War (if only because of the reduced sizes of Eastern Bloc nations), although that's just speculation on my part. --KNHaw (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Even diesel subs can cruise on batteries for several days, and the new AIP subs for even longer, so they'll still need sonobuoys. I'm suprised the GAO din't point that out, along with how much money we're wasting on sub-sniffers thatcould be "better" spent redecorating the WHite House. And Greenpeace already throws more fits than a daycare full of 2-year olds, so who would notice? :) - BilCat (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I have changed the text as it implied the sniffer replaced the MAD which is not what the source says it just implied that the sniffer was still not mature but would be retained. Diesel sniffers have been around for a long time they are presumably just trying to make it more sensitive and fancy. As the report says with the user of other sensors, like sonobuoys, the MAD can be removed for the little gain over the submarines it gives. It was really from an era when submarines were big and metal, and also if I remember a pain to set up properly. MilborneOne (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
For real MAD defense see USS California (SSN-781). Hcobb (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal, P-8 AGS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus here is to merge the AGS article into the P-8 article. Given the aircraft similarities, covering the AGS proposal here seems appropriate. This can be revisited if the situation changes. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Boeing P-8 AGS → Boeing P-8 Poseidon

(See WP:Merging and moving pages for details on performing mergers.)

The P-8 AGS is a proposed version of the P-8 for the US Air Force to replace the E-8 Joint STARS. I don't believe there are enough real differences to warrant its own article at this stage. So I propose merging the basics from the AGS article here. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't made up my mid about this, but I note that Northrop Grumman E-8 Joint STARS has its own article. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Not enough unique content at this time, especially for a mere proposal, unlike the E-8, which actually exists in several models. - BilCat (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Per my nomination comments above. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge - The fact that E-8 Joint STARS has its own article is irrelevant, and not just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; the E-8 is an individual type of aircraft, there's no other "E-8" type. The P-8 AGS is a subvariant of the P-8 - and, as of now, only a proposed one - the basic practice is to only spin off subvariants if they would be WP:UNDUE in the main type's article, which, at this point at least, I don't think it would be. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge but not all of it, only needs a paragraph in this article most of the rest is related to the JSTARS replacement program and is not really needed here (or perhaps anywhere). MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Good point. I copied some background text and references to the E-8 article. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- different missions and different crews. -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The RB-29 had a different mission and different crew from the B-29, but they're both at Boeing B-29 Superfortress. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Plenty of B-17s served with the US Coastguard, not as bombers but in naval reconnaissence and rescue missions; dispite it being a different crew, a different service, and a different mission, it is kept within the base B-17 article. Kyteto (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support No major differences between the two aircraft. --Sp33dyphil © • © 09:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support This has my support, this is a rough proposal for now, and is little more than a after-thought 'variant' to take advantage of the opportunity presented by tweaking an existing design to decrease costs. For years, they were considered the same on a 767 platform, we don't need to create an article for every proposed adaption upon its public presentation. Kyteto (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - There don't seem to be many differences between the tow aircraft. Go ahead and merge that article into this one. —Compdude123 (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - It's a variant and it makes sense to talk about it within this context. If, at some point, their paths radically diverge (i.e. C-130, MC-130,and AC-130) we can always split it up. Buffs (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Maritime security aircraft

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/07/10/boeing-to-develop-mini-poseidon/

The field seems to be heating up enough lately (hint: South China's Sea), to be worth a page or a category, no? Hcobb (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

RAAF getting P-8

they are ordering 8 and getting them around 2017-2018 is the Australian air force page a reliable source its from http://www.airforce.gov.au/Technology/Future_Acquisitions/P8-A_Poseidon/?RAAF-Z4PUOpGXH/eLtWmc6qxYl9xYycb+rKng — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.137.248 (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal, P-8I

Merge Boeing P-8I Neptune → Boeing P-8 Poseidon (See WP:Merging and moving pages for details on performing mergers.)

Why have two articles for essentially the same aircraft????--Petebutt (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Support - Concur. No need for two separate articles. - BilCat (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Support - Merge Boeing P-8I Neptune into Boeing P-8 Poseidon. Mark83 (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Support - There is no justification for a split with that level of content; it's served fine enough as one article, it would have to be an exceptional level of detail to deserve a split. Kyteto (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Support - The P-8I is covered better in this article already. Merge per comments above. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. - BilCat (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Currently being developed

The lead says "currently being developed," but would it be more accurate to say that it's now in service? Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Text adjusted to say 'developed'. This wording does not exclude further development and improvement or changes. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

I know essentially nothing about military aircraft. The acronym 'ISR' is used three times in the article without explanation. I think an expansion of the term and/or a link to an explanation would helpful. Benthatsme (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Linked/abbreviation now preceded by full title. Mark83 (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

hose-and-drogue vs flying boom

Apparently this aircraft is the first US Navy aircraft to equipped for aerial refueled by the flying boom system instead of the hose-and-drogue system. The Aerial refueling article states that "all US Navy and Marine Corps aircraft refuel using the hose-and-drogue". It appears that is is now an incorrect statement. --rogerd (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Good point. And it was incorrect before this - the C-40 isn't capable of aerial refueling? Mark83 (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
No, I think the C-40A (Navy), and C-40B & C (Air Force) aircraft are more like civilian 737's and have no aerial refueling capability. --rogerd (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
It has been wrong since the 1980s as the E-6 has a flying boom receptacle. MilborneOne (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
You are right, when I saw your response, I didn't believe it since it is a modified civilian airliner and I didn't know they could put receptacles on retrofit aircraft, but seeing is believing. Thanks for the clarification. --rogerd (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Not really relevant to this article but just to note all the E-6s were built new. MilborneOne (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Aircraft Range

Aircraft Range is the maximal total range is the distance an aircraft can fly between takeoff and landing.

Aircraft Range is NOT -
- Fly from A,
- float about somewhere for a while,
- then fly back to A.

Range when quoted as UNITS RADIUS, means the aircraft's OPERATING/COMBAT RADIUS.

Stop ignoring RADIUS, and wrongly reverting the article.

Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) - P-8 Poseidon Range: 1,200 nautical miles radius with four hours on station

The correct values are -
range main= 3,781 nmi
range alt= 7,002 km
combat radius main= 1,200 nmi
combat radius alt= 2,222 km
combat radius more= ; 4 hours on station (for anti-submarine warfare mission)
range more=; Operating/Combat radius 1,200 nmi, plus 4 hours on station (for anti-submarine warfare mission) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.17.112 (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The first problem is that when an IP address changes a number in a specifications field, without comment, I'm always going to revert it. Especially after I saw that those numbers were not in the cited sources. The second problem I have is where did you get the 7,002 km / 3,781 nmi numbers? All you have to do is add a link to where you got them and it would probably be fine. Since we don't know, what are we left to assume? You made it up? You made an educated guess and calculated it out somehow? You have access to unpublished, potentially classified materials? If it's any of those three, you should not be posting it on wikipedia. It looks to me like Boeing and the USN links are deliberately leaving out the exact number for some reason. Those numbers are probably not unreasonable, but the where did you get them? --Dual Freq (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I removed the 7,002 km / 3,781 nmi range numbers as I don't feel comfortable leaving uncited numbers in specifications. If we don't have a source we shouldn't be using it in there. Feel free to provide a source for your numbers at any time. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

No, Malaysia will not offer a base for P-8

The sentence that "Malaysia offered the use of bases in Borneo for P-8s in 2014" is incorrect. You can refer to this article[1] written by Dzirhan Mahadzir. He is a Malaysian who writes a lot about Malaysian security matters and a respected writer. I will find another sources to back this if needed. Kamalzack (talk) 09:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's a Reuters article that clarifies the CNO's statement. "A spokesman for Greenert, Navy Captain Danny Hernandez, clarified the comments on Friday, saying Greenert had not said that any P-8 flights from Malaysia had been approved or that there was an agreement to do so." http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/09/12/malaysia-usa-spyplanes-idINKBN0H72DD20140912 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamalzack (talk • contribs) 00:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://thediplomat.com/2014/09/no-malaysia-would-never-host-a-us-spy-base/
  • The article text only said Malaysia offered the use of the bases. There was nothing about the US accepting the offer, flights being approved, etc. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hainan island, the sequel

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/08/22/342465620/chinese-fighter-buzzed-u-s-navy-plane-in-dangerous-intercept

Seems to be widely reported and the closest any P8 has come to being knocked out of the skies. Seems un-neutral to not cover it. Hcobb (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Maritime recon a/c get intercepted by someone every day, I suppose the Tu-95 Bear article would be many megabytes long long if wikipedia existed in the 1970s and 80s and if every interception or near miss from the cold war was recorded. Same goes for P-3 and others. How many of these incidents do you want to list going forward? However, I see that they will keep appearing since people like to put news items on wikipedia, same with Tu-95 article apparently. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I understand the concern for WP:RECENTISM, at the same time this event has received significant coverage from a wide number of reliable sources, and is not just confined to a local area. Furthermore, the sources point out, that this is an on going event with intercepts going back to earlier this year; this one just happens to be within 20 feet of each other, and thus becomes a near miss incident, often receiving wide coverage.
IMHO, if these events continue to occur, than this single event can be condensed into part of a paragraph, but given the wide coverage given to it, I say keep it, and we can reassess it later.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
It's simply too early for a relatively-minor event only a few days old. If it's still generating significant coverage a few weeks from now, especially if actions or sanctions result, or if it's revealed that the P-8's pilots took extraordinary actions to prevent an accident which are unusual for a 737-type airliner, then add it back in at that point. - BilCat (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I think if a U.S. aircraft were to nearly collide with another aircraft, it would likely get as much news as this event. Every nation with the ability, does surveillance, and occasionally it gets reported on; intercepts are one thing, near misses are another.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the question is how is this notable to the aircraft itself. Is it also notable to the J-11? Why or why not? This is more of a China-US relationship item than a P-8 item. Many Tu-95 Bear photos on the net showing tight formations with F-4's, F-14s and F-104s. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) An incident in which the US aircraft was the agressor still wouldn't be noteworthy to this that aircraft's article this early after such an incident occured. This wasn't a near miss between civilian aircraft where such things aren't supposed to occur at all. This was the purposeful harassment of one militay aircraft by another one in which the pilot apparently kept in full control of the aircaft, and it simply isn't important to the aircraft itself as yet. It may be important to the US Navy's article, but not here. Now in the highly-unlikely event that this incident causes the USN to arm the P-8 with Sidwinders, or some similar action involving P-8s specifically, then that would be important to the aircraft and its deployment. But not yet. - BilCat (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that this incident is probably minor enough to not be included in this article. I've noticed that more info about this event and reactions to it keep being added to this article...however, this article is about an aircraft type. Information relevant to an event, but not the aircraft itself, should not be in this article. If this incident becomes significant enough to merit its own article, then maybe a brief sentence should be included in this article. But right now, I think we have an issue with WP:recentism and WP:NOTNEWS. Cheers!Skyraider1 (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Not notable to the aircraft, Chinese (or sometimes Russians) get to close, Americans complain is fairly standard fare and not really of note and should not be added. MilborneOne (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Then where should this content be included? In Sino-American relations? Hainan Island incident? Information of operations of the unit that the particular P-8 was assigned to?
I added the content to the Operations section, as it was the most appropriate place I could think of at the time. Help would be appreciated.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Is China–United States relations too broad to list every time the countries ram their aircraft? Hcobb (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
No one has rammed any aircraft in relation to this story. Interceptions of maritime patrol a/c happen quite often, are you saying each time one is noted in the media it should be posted in an encyclopedia article about the aircraft involved? This is a political and diplomatic story, not a story about an aircraft. China–United States relations would be the place to note this, if it becomes a huge diplomatic mess. --Dual Freq (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
This almost meets WP:EVENT, except it is too soon to tell if it will meet WP:PERSISTENCE. It already meets WP:GNG, but since event is more narrowly defined, we'll have to wait and see whether it meets the part I just mentioned. Again, if the unit this particular P-8 is assigned to can be found, than perhaps that would be a better home to this content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Although this is WP:OR, doing some digging found this. As this event occurred after VP-16 departed, and given how there are only two P-8 units stood up, it must be VP-5.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point, I don't see how this meets GNG for the aircraft, P-8 or J-11? The story is not about the P-8 or the J-11, it is about US-China relations. If someone is threatened with a knife on the street and is nearly stabbed, does the newspaper write a story about the knife or the crime? If it is mentioned in the newspaper that the criminal used a Bowie knife, do we add the news stories to the article about Bowie knives? Look at the bigger picture here. This is an article about a type of aircraft. No one will care how many times it was intercepted years from now. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not about whether the aircraft, the subject of this article, meets GNG, it already does. My statement was that the event would meet GNG as it has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources on an international scale; however as an event, it has not yet met PERSISTENCE.
As I said I would be OK with moving this content, but given the dozens of indepth reliable sources of stories about this one operational experience of the aircraft it should be given WP:DUE weight here, and if not here elsewhere. And if elsewhere, I say keep it until we can find that appropriate elsewhere. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Is the proper location for this VP-45 as per http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140822/DEFREG02/308220025/Chinese-Fighter-Buzzes-US-Patrol-Aircraft ? Hcobb (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a reasonable home to the well cited content to me.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
And another source says VP-5. http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/20140827-p8.html Hcobb (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks like the mention of the aircraft's unit was removed, a second time, even though per WP:BRD, a discussion should have occurred first before re-removing it. Although I understand the reasoning for copy editing, I don't think removing the aircraft's unit was necessary, nor removing the fact that the PLAAF aircraft was armed.
Furthermore, since the event is still receiving news coverage, as recently as 15 September, it could be argued that the incident meets WP:PERSISTENCE. I invite BilCat who re-reverted to comment.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I merely supported Kyteto's copy edits, the particulars of which he can defend if he so choses. The consensus here a month ago was basically that the content should be removed outright, and yet it's still. You even agreed to move it elsewhere over 3 weeks ago, so why is it still here? You're welcome to make a new case to keep it in all its extra details. If it's meeting WP:PERSISTENCE,now, then perhaps it's time for its own article. - BilCat (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
By the way, Kyteto removevd the content 6 days ago, so it's a bit late to be claiming BRD on reverting him, which is why I restored his version in spite of your BRD claim. - BilCat (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
This seems more than adequate to describe a political news story in an article about a type of aircraft. If the entire thing were removed from the Boeing P-8 Poseidon article, I would not object. China–United States relations seems like the place to put this type of diplomatic story. Its notable for the diplomatic relationship, not for what models of aircraft were involved. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
@BilCat, I am sorry that I hadn't patrolled this page much sooner, otherwise I would have reverted it more quickly. As for why the content is still here, is because I haven't gotten around to editing or creating the article yet due to business in real life, and thus WP:NOTIMELIMIT.
As the event meets all parts of WP:EVENT, I think that the event could survive a notability challenge and remain a standalone article. Therefore, to seed it under Sino-American relations article I think is unnecessary. The only problem I can think of is what would be a neutral name for it?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I have not been able to find a comparable article solely about an interception incident with no airframe loss. June 2012 interception of Turkish aircraft is about as close as I can find, but there was a shootdown there. Aircraft interceptions are fairly routine, they make the news for political reasons, it seems like they would not be notable unless a hull loss, a/c damage or serious injury / death occurs. On the other hand, I see this as a political diplomatic story with a focus more on China–United States relations rather than which aircraft were involved. I suppose that someone has jumped all over the Tu-95 Bear article to add recent non-notable interceptions there as well. More than 50 bombers have been intercepted in the last 5 years, does each incident deserve to be noted and cataloged in it's own article?[1] --Dual Freq (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This is diplomacy by other means and needs to be noted only in the relations article. Hcobb (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Can be said about all conflict and warfare.
While some Bear intercepts make news, this particular intercept has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources and goes beyond WP:NOTNEWS, as the event (and resulting diplomatic and operational impact) has been reported on weeks after the event occurred by multiple reliable sources, including one in the Beijing friendly South China Morning Post published a couple days ago. Therefore, although I can see the reasoning for making it a section underneath the China–United States relations article, I think it should be a standalone event article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
If this was a one off incident it would hardly be notable. It's part of a pattern of behavior that has already claimed at least one life and threatens to start a major conflict. Hcobb (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I have created a draft of the proposed article. If there are individuals who are interested in working on the draft. I'd like to get the help. If we get it to C status before making it "live", we can go for a DYK.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

UK order update

Since this article is being babysat into oblivion and adding information is a real pain in the ass because of it, I'll just leave this source here for you lot to figure it out on your own:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/first-two-british-p-8-poseidon-maritime-patrol-aircraft-ordered/ Jurryaany (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Boeing P-8 Poseidon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boeing P-8 Poseidon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Article incorrect - all 12 aircraft have been delivered to RAAF

Per here [2]. Everytime I try to fix it though I just get reverted though so maybe someone else can sort this out. 149.167.100.225 (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I tried again against my better judgement. 149.167.100.225 (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the updates with the supporting source(s). Most of the time users try to make updates with no sources provided, which breaks WP:VERIFY and other policies. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Does the P-8 have any ECM, chaff, flares or a towed decoy?

Does the P-8 have any such countermeasures? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.57 (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the spec section of the article ? MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah and there's no mention of any such countermeasures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.57 (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
There is actually you just need to do a bit of leg work with Google (other search engines exist) using the provided info. MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Where? ESM isn't the same as ECM. The Poseidon uses this system for ESM: https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grumman-s-electronic-support-measures-system-for-the-p-8a-poseidon-receives-official-nomenclature As the article says "The adaptive tuning, precise direction finding and geolocation capabilities of the ALQ-240(V)1 will allow P-8A aircrews to detect and identify radar and other electronic threats to the aircraft and Navy vessels." Detecting threats and dealing with them are two different things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.57 (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Not all still Boeing

It's not all still Boeing, It was Boeing Commercial Airplanes and Boeing Defense, Space and Security. They both jointly manufactured the aircraft. --Jostcom (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Both are divisions of The Boeing Company. There's no need to distinguish in the infobox in such a clumsy fashion. - BilCat (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Mark83 (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
There's absolutely a need to distinguish in the infobox. --Jostcom (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Why? They are all part of one company. The infobox is just supposed to be a short summary; the details can be handled in the body of the article. - BilCat (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, I'll tell you. Boeing's Commercial Airplanes division manufactured the airframe, while its DSS division did modifications to the P-8. The infobox needs to handle alot of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jostcom (talk • contribs)
That's all you've been telling us. What you haven't been telling us is why a distinction needs to be made where space is at a premium. Boeing is one company/corporation with several divisions/sectors. There's no need to overwhelm the reader in the infobox with what amounts to a trivial distinction that is of little relevance outside of Boeing itself. - BilCat (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The reader won't be overwhelmed. Boeing has divisions, like Boeing Commercial Airplanes. I'm sure that the reader will be fine. --Jostcom (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Again, you haven't addressed why this information is so important that it has to be placed in the infobox. Until then, the consensus here is clearly against its inclusion, so unless you can persuade one of us to change his mind, or other users can express a good reason for its inclusion, it will be left out for now. - BilCat (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • This company info would be better and more clear covered in the body of the article instead of squeezed in the Infobox with no explanation. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Sensor

No mention of MX-20 optical sensor 2601:142:8200:39A0:80A2:3C1C:6C4E:1744 (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Why is having a camera particularly noteworthy or unusual, we dont have to list every sensor used. MilborneOne (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_P-8_Poseidon/Archive_1&oldid=1186570895"