Talk:Maritime patrol aircraft

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Maritime patrol aircraft article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation: Aircraft This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. This article is supported by the aircraft project. Military history: Aviation This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force

I've separated out those ASW/ASUW aircraft types that are not an MPA. In most cases (e.g. 1-2 seat carrier based aircraft) it's quite clear that they are not types normally referred to as MPA. The S-3 Viking is not normally referred to as an MPA - based on google search 16/1/2011:

• "S-3 viking maritime patrol aircraft" - 3720 hits (including hits because of this WP article)
• "S-3 viking anti-submarine aircraft" - 55100 hits
• "nimrod maritime patrol aircraft" - 6700 hits
• "nimrod anti-submarine aircraft" - 6590 hits

DexDor (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not just a case of different US/UK terminology - "P-3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft" gets twice as many google hits as "P-3 Orion anti-submarine aircraft". 23:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DexDor (talk • contribs)

The search string is too long and overly specific ("aircraft" and S-3 are not needed and potentially skew the results) and maritime patrol aircraft is a much broader definition that is far more than just anti-submarine warfare, and the S-3, being used only by the USN as a carrier based aircraft, is a poor choice to work from. The S-2 would be a better choice as it is used by many countries for the identical roles that other countries use the P-3.

"tracker maritime patrol" 5,450 results vs. "tracker anti-submarine" 1,330 results

"P-3 maritime patrol" 3,990 results vs. "P-3 anti-submarine" 2,490 results

Notice that the results for ASW type aircraft are now reversed, and in line with MPA - one of the reasons this is not a good basis for argument. A few tweaks and it can go either way, and it is impossible for me to now duplicate your results.

The sole distinction between S types and P types is endurance, as the Aurora - a P-3 variant, was delivered with the same electronics fit and similar weapons capabilities as the S-3 Viking. Both are about controlling maritime environments, and both are capable of detecting and sinking submarines or surface combatants. The S-3 and S-2 sacrificed endurance and weapon load to be small enough to operate from a carrier, while the P-3 has the advantage of being operated from land bases without similar restrictions. NiD.29 (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the USCG's own (government) website, https://www.beechcraft.com/special_missions/ Beechcraft] (and other major sites) uses the term maritime patrol to refer to smaller, short range aircraft that the more limited definition would exclude - if the operators/customers are calling them MPAs, and the manufacturers are calling them MPAs, and they do the same job, then who are we to argue?NiD.29 (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to clarification tag "Leigh light used for attack after location by radar not for general search":

• The article doesn't say that Leigh light was used for search - just that searchlights (e.g. LL) assist the "Mk 1 Eyeball" sensor.
• The Leigh light article describes it as a searchlight.
• The term "Searchlight" doesn't just apply when used for searching (see searchlight article).
• I would be surprised if MPA searchlights have never been used for searching - SAR.
• This article covers a long time period and both mil and civil MPAs so can't go into details of operational use of searchlight/flares in WW2 etc.

For these reasons I think the clarification tag is not justified and will remove it. DexDor (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Leigh Light was only used to illuminate the U-boat once the carrying aircraft was within range and near enough to drop depth charges. It was not used as a general search light. The light was automatically aimed by a system linked into the radar so that the light was pointing directly at the surfaced submarine when the light was switched on at or near the correct range for dropping depth charges.

The practice at the time was for a U-boat to surface at night to run on its Diesels and charge its batteries. The noise of the U-boat's Diesels drowned out the sound of any aircraft nearby so the only indication the submarine was in danger was when the light was switched on by which time it was too late for the U-boat to do much as the light was only switched on at the very end of the aircraft's attacking run just before the depth charges were to be dropped. The Leigh Light forced the U-boat arm in the Bay of Biscay to resort to surfacing by day to charge their batteries, which made them vulnerable to Allied surface ships and to other aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.51 (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Sensors section has recently been expanded, but IMHO it's much too detailed (anyone who wants more details about sonobuoys etc can just click on a link), contains statements that really need to be cited (e.g. "visible from above to a considerable depth"), contains statements that aren't on the main articles (e.g. about the Russian coastline) and assumes that ASW is the only MPA role. Also what MPAs (airplanes) have used reeled MAD ? I propose cutting out much/all of the new stuff.

In the Examples section, I think the country listed against each aircraft type should be the manufacturing country, not the operating country(ies) - otherwise the P-3, for example, would have a long list of countries. I propose deleting other countries and adding a note/comment to this effect. DexDor (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The

is much smaller and carries no weapons.

Can we get either a Maritime surveillance aircraft, or a separate section in this article for those aircraft that observe, but do not engage in combat? Hcobb (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That one particular proposed aircraft type is named "Maritime Surveillance Aircraft" (note the capital letters) doesn't mean there's a need for an article about the concept of a maritime surveillance aircraft. If/when it becomes sufficiently notable it can be mentioned on this article and/or at Surveillance aircraft. Many manufacturers have proposed a maritime patrol/surveillance variant of their aircraft, but many/most have not gone into service. DexDor (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The terminology is about selling airplanes, NOT their roles. Call them anything you want, but they are still a maritime patrol aircraft, in that they carry out patrols over the sea. The US uses P (for Patrol) or S (for anti-submarine) for all such types. There is no special designation for an unarmed P type. The RAF designation for their maritime patrol aircraft is MR (for Maritime Reconnaissance) and earlier, Coastal Reconnaissance. The aircraft industry is creating an ever expanding lexicon to describe the same things in new ways, not least in an effort to sell aircraft or justify purchases. To the average Senator/MP/etc, MSA sounds different from MPA so maybe some are needed too - and thus more contracts get written.

Both are responsible for control of sea lanes and coastal areas and the roles are too similar to split. The sole defining characteristic isn't even permanent as both offensive and defensive weaponry can be added or removed. The

Lockheed Aurora

(for instance) were both used for both roles (fisheries patrols, sovereignty patrols, search and rescue flights, customs patrols and also anti-submarine and anti-ship patrols) at various times, either armed or unarmed, as needed.

Whether an aircraft actually fires weapons at an enemy is a moot point - an SR-71 is just as much a combat aircraft as an F-15 despite not carrying weapons as its value is in the information it collects. They are military aircraft, carrying out military objectives, and any opponent will target them if they can.

The list is too short for its own page, and has too much overlap for its own section and is open to interpretation. Many early maritime patrol/coastal patrol/maritime reconnaissance/patrol aircraft were not capable of disabling or sinking a ship by themselves (even when armed) and their role was to report movements so they could be dealt with by surface forces, but finding references to separate them is impossible as the terminology never made that distinction.

NiD.29 (talk) 06:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So the article starts off by contrasting patrol aircraft with ships, helicopters and unmanned aircraft. That's promising. Helicopters and unmanned drones are maritime patrol aircraft. That term encompasses every form of aircraft used for maritime patrol. Idumea47b (talk) 08:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]