# best ASW aircraft of cold War



## pbfoot (Apr 3, 2006)

which aircraft do you feel was best ASW aircraft from 45-70 I think the P3 would be first but what would be second best the Shackleton Argus Tracker Neptune Atlantique are some of the ones I can think of I'm partial to the Argus


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 3, 2006)

P3 Orion hands down. It doesnt even have competition.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 3, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> P3 Orion hands down. It doesnt even have competition.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 3, 2006)

As a submariner it pains me to say anything good about ASW aircraft  ...but the P-3 takes the cake. 

For second best, I haven't got a freakin' clue. I'd guess a toss-up between the Argus and the Neptune.


----------



## Glider (Apr 3, 2006)

Sorry chaps but haven't we forgotten the Nimrod? Speed, range plus good electronics and other sensors?

Economic disaster but excellent ASW aircraft


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 3, 2006)

was the nimrod doing asw in the 60s


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 3, 2006)

Admittedly Glider I know less about the Nimrod than I do about the Neptune, which isn't a lot to begin with. I guess I'm in for more of an education here.


----------



## Glider (Apr 3, 2006)

I admit to being only just. First entered service in Oct 69 but I think it depends on your definition of Cold War. It was pretty cold when I was in the RN in the early 70's


----------



## Glider (Apr 3, 2006)

Suspect FJ and Syscom will be harder to educate as FJ worked on the P3.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 3, 2006)

I have to give No1 overall to the P3 but I think the Argus would slay the Shackleton for range . endurance and payload all good qualities some which are still not surpassed in newer aircraft


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 3, 2006)

Glider said:


> Suspect FJ and Syscom will be harder to educate as FJ worked on the P3.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 3, 2006)

Don't forget ASW capability once an aircraft is on station tracking a target they could be replaced - its the ASW suite that really makes upi the aircraft.

The CP-140 was avionics simliar to that of the S3 Viking - Very advanced for its day. (Mid 80s)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 3, 2006)

Not that this will in any way effect the outcome of the contest, but I find it interesting that out of all of the aircraft listed, only the Neptune was designed from the ground up as an ASW aircraft. The others were all conversions of passenger or cargo aircraft, or a bomber in the case of the Shackleton. Like I said, I just find that interesting. I'm easily amused that way.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 3, 2006)

Whoops, didn't see the Tracker there. Must be going blind...again.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 3, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> Not that this will in any way effect the outcome of the contest, but I find it interesting that out of all of the aircraft listed, only the Neptune was designed from the ground up as an ASW aircraft. The others were all conversions of passenger or cargo aircraft, or a bomber in the case of the Shackleton. Like I said, I just find that interesting. I'm easily amused that way.


 That it was but it was done in the WW2 era - its actually very uncomfortable, especially compared with a P-3...

I was in an Argus - it seemed that would be an easy aircraft to do a 8 hour patrol as well....


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 3, 2006)

well the Argus holds a record of over 31 hours on patrol


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 3, 2006)

You ever take a ride in one, pb?


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 3, 2006)

when I was OJT at comox in the mid 70s my boss made me go to Fiji and back it was a horrible experiance sitting in the glass nose no higher 500ft saw whales everything it was a wild trip I had just finished basic and then WoW


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 3, 2006)

Good stuff.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 3, 2006)

I did a flight in the nose of a civilian P-2 - these's nothing to describe it!!!!


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 3, 2006)

The thing that shocked me was how far out you sat you were able to look straight down the only obstruction was the grate beneath your feet and your correct its the best place I've ever sat without a beer


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 3, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> its the best place I've ever sat without a beer


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 4, 2006)

Wow. The closest thing to that _I've_ sat/stood on would have been that glass floor dealy in the CN Tower. Sounds like a bit of a rush.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 4, 2006)

Just thought I'd throw these in for the heck of it. I took them last summer up at CFB Greenwood. Some of you may have seen these before. They're the Argus and the Neptune from the Greenwood museum. The Neptune is actually still the property of the USN, on extended loan to the museum. As far as I'm aware, it's the only one left anywhere in Canada. As I'm sure pb is aware, examples of the Argus can still be found at a few bases across the country, like this one.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 4, 2006)

Very Cool!!!


----------



## Twitch (Apr 4, 2006)

For what it's worth, the Orion hands down.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 4, 2006)

YEP!!!!!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 4, 2006)

*AAAAAHHHHH!!!* 

I mean, uh...Pfffff, it don't look so tough.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 4, 2006)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 4, 2006)

I dont know anything about Cold War ASW aircraft but because everyone else is saying it, Ill say the P-3 too so I look intelligent


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 4, 2006)

cheddar cheese said:


> I dont know anything about Cold War ASW aircraft but because everyone else is saying it, Ill say the P-3 too so I look intelligent


That, or you'll look like a sheep. Whichever. 

...Hmmm, not sure I wanna picture that.


----------



## Glider (Apr 4, 2006)

Sorry folks but I feel that the Nimrod takes the biscuit. It had a range advantage over most if not all the equivalent planes in other airforces, The Nimrod also had the ability to get to a trouble spot faster than any other ASW plane and then linger on the spot, initially on two engines and later on, on one engine. This gave it a formidable endurance over the target, where it counts. Having a long endurance doesn't really help very much if you spend a large proportion of it getting to the danger spot.

People are correct in saying that its the electronic suite that makes a difference and whilst I don't know the details I would be suprised if we were behind the opposition in any significant detail. Anti Sub warfare is always a high priority

As for the bomb bay of a Nimrod, it would make a Lancaster jealous. As for missiles if anyone want to argue the point then I think its the only ASW aircraft to be fitted with air to air missiles. This bit I will need to check but it was cleared for a number of air to surface missiles, I just don't know the details re which ones.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 4, 2006)

Glider said:


> Sorry folks but I feel that the Nimrod takes the biscuit. It had a range advantage over most if not all the equivalent planes in other airforces, The Nimrod also had the ability to get to a trouble spot faster than any other ASW plane and then linger on the spot, initially on two engines and later on, on one engine. This gave it a formidable endurance over the target, where it counts. Having a long endurance doesn't really help very much if you spend a large proportion of it getting to the danger spot.
> 
> People are correct in saying that its the electronic suite that makes a difference and whilst I don't know the details I would be suprised if we were behind the opposition in any significant detail. Anti Sub warfare is always a high priority
> 
> As for the bomb bay of a Nimrod, it would make a Lancaster jealous. As for missiles if anyone want to argue the point then I think its the only ASW aircraft to be fitted with air to air missiles. This bit I will need to check but it was cleared for a number of air to surface missiles, I just don't know the details re which ones.


 The Nimrod takes 2nd - Although it advertises a longer over all range, it cannot loiter longer than the P-3 and it seems that it does not have as capable ASW performance as the P-3 which has dominated NATO ASW Exercises since the 1960s. Nimrods have won a few but its the P-3 that has always shown its the best ASW platform in the world....

Oh, in the 80s the P-3 got beat out a few times, by CP-140s.....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 4, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Oh, in the 80s the P-3 got beat out a few times, by CP-140s.....




Basically beaten by itself then. Ah yes...the Aurora.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 4, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> Basically beaten by itself then. Ah yes...the Aurora.


 YEP!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> That, or you'll look like a sheep. Whichever.
> 
> ...Hmmm, not sure I wanna picture that.



Me neither, you know what lanc's like...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 5, 2006)

No, but I'll take your word for it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2006)

i don't care what you guys say, i'm taking the nimrod, i'm more than happy sitting round for a few hours on one engine, monitoring one of the most comprihensive electronics suites in the world, knowing i've got enough packed in my bomb bay to take out anything in the seas and if i've got my AA missiles, any other large aircraft i'd meet out there.........


----------



## hole in the ground (Jun 30, 2006)

I would deffinately go for the nimrod aswell. Although i have not seen a cold war era fit nimrod i've been on a couple of modern ones and the electronics suite is well.... sweet. And yeah i'll second a pretty awsome weapons load too.
Although i could not tell you what its endurance is.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 30, 2006)

There has been numerous mining derby's and ASW competitions in the 1980s and the P-3 walked away with almost all of them. Granted the Nimrod does carry more ordnance, it ain't doing any good if you can't find the sub to begin with! It has more redundant avionics but these mining derby's and ASW competitions have shown that more doesn't mean better, and if an ASW fix wing aircraft has to carry defensive armament, that tells me that there is an inability to deploy a fighter CAP in support of the ASW mission, something the P-3 never had (has) to worry about when it performs it's mission. Bottom lime the P-3 does the same job with half the avionics and is still doing so. the Nimrod (like any other jet aircraft) makes a poor ASW platform because it can't loiter as long over station and has major corrosion problems because of salt water ingestion. Even now as the USN is attempting to replace the P-3 with a Boeing 737 derivative (known as the P-8 ) I doubt it will ever effectively replace the P-3 or for that reason any turbo-prop ASW platform which does the job way more effectively...


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 30, 2006)

My personal favourites are the Shack and the Nimrod, can the Gannet be included aswell?


----------



## hole in the ground (Jun 30, 2006)

[slaps head]
yes of course. Second Gannet simply because ok


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 30, 2006)

The Gannet was a good carrier ASW platform for short patrols.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 30, 2006)

how can you compare the Shackleton to the Argus
Shackleton Argus
Range 6400km - 9500km
Endurance 14hr - 26.5hr
Payload 4500kg [ 5300kg
Max speed  439kph - 507kph
in other words the Argus go further stay longer carry more and it was faster


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 30, 2006)

The Shack was based on a plane designed in the earky 40s, it's an amazing plane for being in service as long as it has


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 30, 2006)

mosquitoman said:


> The Shack was based on a plane designed in the earky 40s, it's an amazing plane for being in service as long as it has


 no doubt it was fine aircraft it just wasn't as capable as the Argus


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 1, 2006)

you have to remember though that the Shack was also used as a bomber aircraft...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2006)

My vote goes for the P-3 Orion.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 2, 2006)

The Russian Bear bomber in the ASW role was no slouch. It had a huge payload capability and lot sof room in the airframe for sensors.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 2, 2006)

Had? The Tu-142 'Bear F' is still in service in Russia and India. It carries a 20,000 lbs payload and can stay in the air for sixteen hours. It's nicknamed Sentinal of the Ocean by some.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 2, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Had? The Tu-142 'Bear F' is still in service in Russia and India. It carries a 20,000 lbs payload and can stay in the air for sixteen hours. It's nicknamed Sentinal of the Ocean by some.



I meant "has" not "had".


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 2, 2006)

The soviet ASW platforms were capable but a generation behind te west. They painstakenly sought used sonobouys in an attempt to copy then and understand the "Julie Jezabel" and MAD systems used on most western ASW aircraft.


----------



## pshaas (Feb 10, 2007)

In the 1960's, the AN/AQA-5 (JEZEBEL) Indicator Group was in development at the Naval Air Development Center (Johnsville/Warminster) for eventual installation in the new P-3 aircraft. At the time, the Center had no P-3's available yet, and the AQA-5 gram-writer was just too physically large to get into any of our P2V Neptunes for tech-eval flights.

Enter the Argus. The Navy arrived at an agreement with Canada to run the necessary AQA-5 tech-eval flights on their Argus's. Working with the Canadian flight crews was great. We conducted quite a few test flights aboard the Argus out of Summerside, Prince Edward Island, and out of NAS Key West. The one down-side was that the Argus was SLOW. I particularly remember one round-robin out of Summerside: seven hours to the test site somewhere near Bermuda, four hours on-sta, and seven hours back. The longest of these flights was 21 hours, and I understand that the Argus's endurance is over 24 hrs (27?).

The first P-3 built for the Navy was BuNo 148883. Originally stationed at Pax River, it was soon transferred to NADC, where it was used for many years as a test-bed. Early on, even with that aircraft, we at NADC were still pinched for aircraft availablity. A super-constellation NC-121 radar picket aircraft stationed at the Center was being released from the TACAMO program, so we latched onto it, stripped the height-finder radome off, installed a complete P-3A sonobuoy launch package, and used it as a lab aircraft for several years. When deploying to some remote test area, it was large enough to be its own cargo aircraft, carrying pallet-loads of buoys for all the planned test flights. Well, it didn't have a built-in APU, so a ground-power unit would often be fork-lifted in through its cargo door for use at some of the remote fields. You know how stiff a ride the P-3 is; the Connie with its flexible wings rode like a '50's Buick. The biggest downside to that aircraft was how many engines it went through.

883 eventually returned to Pax, and I think it may now be on display there.


----------



## solnar (Feb 10, 2007)

I was in the RAF in the late 70s to mid 80s and flew in both the Nimrod and P3. Both were good at what they were designed for but the Nimrod came out overall tops.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 10, 2007)

I believe the Argus holds some sort of record for unrefuelled flight of 31 hours


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 10, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> I believe the Argus holds some sort of record for unrefuelled flight of 31 hours


Yep.

Canada's Air Force, Aircraft: Canadair CP-107 Argus
_"An Argus flown by 407 Maritime Patrol Squadron held the record for the longest flight by an unrefuelled Aircraft, slightly over 31 hours. This record stood for almost twenty years until broken by a Rutan experimental Aircraft which circled the globe unrefuelled."_

Also of some note:

_"In September 1959, after a tour of Australia and New Zealand, the squadron established a Canadian distance record by flying from Hawaii to North Bay, approximately 4900 miles non-stop without carrying extra fuel or in-flight refueling. On 13/14 April 1960, 405 set a Maritime Command endurance record of 26 hours with a combat ready Aircraft."_

From: 14 Wing - Squadrons Units - 405 Squadron - History


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 12, 2007)

Nonskimmer said:


> Basically beaten by itself then. Ah yes...the Aurora.



Aurora is the Greek goddess who restored Orion's eyesight.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 13, 2007)

From what I understand, the CP-140 Aurora is basically the P-3 Orion airframe fitted with the sensor suite of the S-3 Viking or something very similar. Or at least that's how it was in the beginning, during the early 1980's. As for changes over the years, if any, I wouldn't know. A few of them have had the ASW suite removed, and they're used primarily for coastal surveillance. They call those ones the CP-140A Arcturus. They look outwardly identical to the Aurora/Orion.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 13, 2007)

Nonskimmer said:


> From what I understand, the CP-140 Aurora is basically the P-3 Orion airframe fitted with the sensor suite of the S-3 Viking or something very sinilar. Or at least that's how it was in the beginning, during the early 1980's. As for changes over the years, if any, I wouldn't know. A few of them have had the ASW suite removed, and they're used primarily for coastal surveillance. They call those ones the CP-140A Arcturus. They look outwardly identical to the Aurora/Orion.


Actually the Arcturus were delivered with no ASW equipment and they were the last P-3s (CP-140s) produced in Palmdale CA. The initial 18 CP-140s were built in Burbank CA during the late 1970s and early 1980s. The CAF purchased 3 additional aircraft in the late 1980s and wanted them stripped. When completed they were ferried to IMP of Halifax NS who installed the interior. I was supposed to be the Lockheed rep there but decided 5 years out of country was enough.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 13, 2007)

Oh, I see. There you go.


----------



## fjray (Mar 13, 2007)

Being ex-Viking I have to chime in for the mighty Warhoover. 

However, two SH-3’s working a sub and he’s dead. 

Rode with…..think it was 206 sq out of Sig. Got to admit being able to carry winders was impressive, but the “quick” refueling mod was a bit disconcerting


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 13, 2007)

Cool! I worked on the first S-3B....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 14, 2007)

They are going to finish retiring them pretty soon.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2007)

I know - makes me feel like the old fart that I really am!


----------

