Jump to content

Talk:Lockheed P-3 Orion/Archive 1

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

Page move

Good move, Stan. The P-3C title was over-specific. Now we need to make the entry a bit longer!

Thanks - I noticed this a while back, but failed to be bold about moving it. I figure the full list of variants will disabuse anybody of the misconception that only P-3Cs exist... :-) Stan 22:31 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

Added information from US Navy Fact File.

China incident

Someone correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe it was a variant of this aircraft that made an emergency landing in China a few years back. If so, I think it would be great to have a short write-up in the article about that incident. Does anyone else think this would be a good addition? --Xaliqen 05:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. It was an EP-3. It might make for a neat little tidbit if mentioned, as many other aircraft have their own little stories on some of these articles.

EP3-J's There were 3 of them built, and they were built using P-3B's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.21.235 (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Fire-fighting

If anyone could add information about the fire-fighting variant, of which there are a number in service, that would be helpful. I'm pretty sure they're all ex-Coast Guard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.38.3.164 (talk • contribs)

Possible bigot

In the midst of the the recent edits of the "More users" section, User:61.124.97.251 has deleted the ROKN entry twice in the last 4 days, and possibly more from other IPs before that. It has also deleted a paragraph on a ROKN destroyer. THe IP is registered to a Japanese company. While I can't know the motiviation for this user's actions, it certainly seems fishy, and I'm not going to let these kinds of actions go unanswered. Whatever the motiviation, there's no excuse for this sort of specific vandalism. - BillCJ (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree - I see you have already placed the user warnings on the IP talk page. I will also monitor the IPs contributions. PalawanOz (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

even i must agree that that sort of vandalism is worse then just deleting information that has no references to support it. that is the sort of vandalism that not even i will tolerate. :( Hawkey131 (talk) 05:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Images

We appear to have a daily addition of an image to this article, it is not a photo gallery can we limit or remove some of the images. Do we need an image from every possible user if they are available in the Commons link? MilborneOne (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Addition of Nowray from Finnmark

"There were, however, a lot of military intelligence activity, and Norwegian P-3 Orion maritime surveillance aircraft were often the first to get pictures of newly built Soviet submarines and aircraft."

Should Norway be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.210.163 (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Norway is already listed in the military operators section PalawanOz (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Base plane for P-8 Poseidon

This article says that the P3 will be replaced by the P8 which is based on the 737-700. The P-8 Poseidon article says it is based on the 737-800.

Can anyone clarify?

FerdinandFrog (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The image File:Lockheed AWACS, 1984.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The Su-27 incident?

Shouldn't this be noted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.174.66 (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Depends if we have any clues to what your talking about, is it notable do you have a reliable reference? MilborneOne (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Spetember 13, 1987: Over the Barents Sea, a Royal Norwegian Air Force P-3B Orion recon aircraft, titled "602", was crashed by a Su-27, titled "29". One of the tail vertical stabilizers hit the propeller of one of the P-3's engines. The shrapnels from the propeller hit the fuselage of the P-3, making it drop for 1'000 fts. before stabilizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.59.99 (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Reliable sources? - BillCJ (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Isnt this already mentioned in Operational History, although it is still not referenced. MilborneOne (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit from Norway:

I`d like to point out that the wings of the Orion was intact after the collision, one propeller blade and the fuselage of the Orion was damaged. A piece of the propeller hit and penetrated the fuselage and hit a vacuum cleaner inside the plane. I have seen the propeller blade myself, it is displayed at the 333 sqd RNoAF motor workshop at Andøya Norway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.204.226.229 (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

P-3B (Super B)

I find little or nothing about this variant of the P-3. My squadron (VP-1) was using this variant during my tour (1981-1984ish).

It was equipped with IRDS (Infrared camera turret),a new ESM system, and was HARPOON missile capable. The Super-B was reported to rival the P-3C in performance and indeed our squadron outperformed other squadrons equipped with P-3C's. I find it disturbing that there appears to be *zero* information about this variant on the web.

Rtwas (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Military Operator Section

I want to break this section off modeled after List of B-17 Flying Fortress operators, it can be greatly expanded to include more information about each operator, which would just make the main article long and sloppy . This main article B-17 is a FA, and I wish to continue to example they have set forth. Also note: I DO NOT have to discuss anything first. I just have to BE BOLD and want for someone to revert it. Aalox (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I've reverted the split of the Operators section to List of P-3 Orion operators, per Bold-revert-discuss. I don't believe that either the article or the Operators section are long enough to warrant a split aty this time. Most of the length of the section is caused by the long stack of images in the article. Cutting back some of the redundant images might be a better option. If someone still believes a split is warranted, please propose it first, and gain a consensus here to support it. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
No, you don't have to discus a split first, but on a heavily-edited article such as this one, it is the courteous thing to do. Also, copying other articles is not necessarily a good thing, as each aircraft article is different. What works for one may not work for others. - BilCat (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Heavily edited? In the past 30 days, there was my edits, a minor addition to operators, and some vandalism, a bot edit, spelling correct and a category change. How is that Heavily edited? Next time, let someone run with an a bold edit like this for a day and perhaps encourage others to pitch in before going and killing their thunder and discouraging future improvements. Also, the only contributions I see from you are just slapping other people down that try to add something to this article. Perhaps there is a little WP:Own here? Aalox (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't think I "own" the article. But if you can't handle being "discouraged", then WP isn't a good place to be - it happens all the time, but it's part of the way the system works. It's never a bad thing to discuss major changes first, especially if your goal is to work toward FA status. That way your "thunder" isn't misdireceted or wasted on something no one else wants to do. It's better to know that up front. As for "heavily edited", some articles have only had one or two edits per year; this one has a quite bit more than that! - BilCat (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Support It list a bit awkward in the main article and FA Article B-17 Flying Fortress has it as a separate article. It has great potential to grow when fears of cluttering the main article are removed.Aalox (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


Added paragraph to include link to CP-823/U page. The CP-823/U computing system was the first P-3C computer. Yukshmoog (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Added paragraph of ROCAF and ROCN details for P-3A(1966-1967, on behalf of CIA) and P-3C(2012). Too tire to break into a covert operation section for the 3 "black" P-3A, so I made it in the military operator section. Also updated the P-3 variant article, and the EP-3 article with the same material that covers EP-3B. ROCN section added 3 "spare" airframe also got rebuilt/refurbished in the deal, but would be only use for "spare parts", which doesn't make sense at all. Most likely are converting to EP-3E ARIES II standard, with some contracts were awarded to L3 already, same contractors converted the 12 EP-3E ARIES II.Bryan TMF (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Should also add for the other nation operators date on when they received their P-3, and if new build, or transfers. Didn't Lockheed move the production plant just a few years before closing the line. Wfoj2 (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


Why is NOAA a military operator? They look more civillian to me. According to the wiki page for NOAA, it is a "scientific agency within the US Dept. of Commerce". 182.19.157.234 (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Military Operators Map

The military operators map shows Peru as an Orion user. As this is clearly not correct, could someone change the map accordingly? --Victor12 (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

While reading noticed the words Mohammed Ashraf added at least one time.62.106.14.105 (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Pakalertpress

are we really useing Pakalertpress as a quoted source? They talk about aliens living in underground bunkers, and end of the world pridictions. Example http://www.pakalertpress.com/about/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.31.160.200 (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Quantity Built and Longevity

List total 757 aircraft built. When was the last one built? Didn't production get moved from Georgia to California (or reverse - what year). 50 years of service - but what is the average age of aircraft still operating ? (then compare that to the B-52s average age). Was it the longest aircraft for duration of original production line? Lists that current US Navy operating quantity is less than 200. What was the highest number of aircraft in US Navy operational status, at one point. Ensure folks realize some differences in it's longevity versus the B-52. Wfoj2 (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Defining Characteristic

This article states in its opening paragraph: "The aircraft is easily recognizable by its distinctive tail stinger or "MAD Boom", used for the magnetic detection of submarines." Such booms are common on ASW aircraft, so not sure how "distinctive" this is or how it makes the Orion "easily recognizaable" compared to similar aircraft so equipped. The Orion or Electra is far more distinctive as having its four turboprop engine mounted upside down on top of its wings - now how many aircraft can make that claim? BTW, wouldn't it be more helpul to define an acronym at its first use rather than bury that definition halfway down the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/orion/
    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Lockheed P-3 Orion. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lockheed P-3 Orion. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lockheed P-3 Orion. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lockheed P-3 Orion. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Surviving Aircraft

Since the article says P-3 aircraft are still active, I think the "Surviving Aircraft" section should be labelled "Retired/Display Aircraft".

2601:647:4E80:2030:4D38:19D:2FB7:5F42 (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lockheed_P-3_Orion/Archive_1&oldid=985089062"