Simple lesson, higher altitude enables the ability to 'see' further.
Also, the overall maintenance is similar to a number of systems already in place, so parts, logistical supply, and training is refined and simplified keeping operational costs lower.
But thanks for playing. A-hole
P8A
General Characteristics:
Propulsion:Two CFM56-7 engines providing 27,000 pounds thrust each
Length:129.5 feet (39.47 meters)
Wing Span:123.6 feet (37.64 meters)
Height:42.1 feet (12.83 meters)
Maximum Takeoff Gross Weight:189,700 pounds (85,139 kilograms)
Speed:490 knots (564 mi/h, 789 km/h)
Range:1,200+ nautical miles, with 4 hours on station (1,381 miles, 2,222 kilometers)
Ceiling:41,000 feet (12,496 meters)
Crew:9
P3 Orion
Wing span: 100 feet
Length: 117 feet
Height: 34 feet
Weight: maximum takeoff: 142,000 pounds
Speed: maximum: 473 mph
cruise: 377 mph
Ceiling: 28,300 feet
Range: maximum mission radius: 2,380 nautical miles 3 hours on station at 1,500 feet: 1,346 nautical miles
Power plant: four Allison T56-A-14 turboprop engines
Crew: 10
First, if you look back at the thread, you condescended, didn’t call you names and in fact toned things down from your post. You came up short and, as my Dad would say, should straighten up and fly right.
Poking around the internet this afternoon I find that the P-3 has greater payload. Also, while on station, it doesn’t need to be refueled twice so the P-8’s crew size is effectively twice as large as the P-3’s. The extra speed the P-8 has would be negated by the need to take a time out to refuel. Moreover the P-3 can fly plenty high now that they fixed the oxygen system fires in the 60’s but when attacking subs, planes don’t want to fly very high anyway.
I still don’t get it. It seems by every objective number the P-3 was a better plane for the mission. I found the Orion 21 project and it seems to have just the kind of upgrades one would want.