Boeing 737 Maritime aircraft

[JD]

I was checking out the new Naval Proceedings (I'm a new subscriber) and saw
an advertisement for the 737 as a maritime patrol aircraft complete with
hard points and weapons. It looks pretty cool, but I was surprised.
Does anyone have it in their present inventory or is it merely a proposal to
replace the aging P-3?

JD

[Dave Kearton]

"JD" > wrote in message
news:8urBb.348503$ao4.1165781@attbi_s51...
> I was checking out the new Naval Proceedings (I'm a new subscriber) and
saw
> an advertisement for the 737 as a maritime patrol aircraft complete with
> hard points and weapons. It looks pretty cool, but I was surprised.
> Does anyone have it in their present inventory or is it merely a proposal
to
> replace the aging P-3?
>
> JD



And is the lack of a bomb bay a serious shortfall ?


Presumably on newbuild aircraft, the wings would be stressed to carry a
heavy load at sea level.





Cheers


Dave Kearton

[Darrell A. Larose]

"Dave Kearton" ) writes:
> "JD" > wrote in message
> news:8urBb.348503$ao4.1165781@attbi_s51...
>> I was checking out the new Naval Proceedings (I'm a new subscriber) and
> saw
>> an advertisement for the 737 as a maritime patrol aircraft complete with
>> hard points and weapons. It looks pretty cool, but I was surprised.
>> Does anyone have it in their present inventory or is it merely a proposal
> to
>> replace the aging P-3?
>>
>> JD
>
>
>
> And is the lack of a bomb bay a serious shortfall ?
>
>
> Presumably on newbuild aircraft, the wings would be stressed to carry a
> heavy load at sea level.
>
Seems to have an weapons bay in this image (artist's rendering)
<http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/mma-boeing.jpg>

[Thomas Schoene]

JD wrote:
> I was checking out the new Naval Proceedings (I'm a new subscriber)
> and saw an advertisement for the 737 as a maritime patrol aircraft
> complete with hard points and weapons. It looks pretty cool, but I
> was surprised.
> Does anyone have it in their present inventory or is it merely a
> proposal to replace the aging P-3?

It's one of two candiates for the Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft. The
other, from Lock-Mart, is yet another P-3 rebuild called Orion-21.

The 737 MMA is based on the 737-800 but has a bunch of modifications,
including a -900's wings, heavier gear, and a weapon bay forward of the wing
carry-through.

Indonesia uses (or at elats used to use) three older 737-200s for maritime
surface patrol, with side-looking radar and a camera (plus maybe some SIGINT
gear). Obviously MA is more elaborate.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Andrew Toppan]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:14:52 +1030, "Dave Kearton"
> wrote:

>And is the lack of a bomb bay a serious shortfall ?

A moot point, since the proposal does indeed have an internal weapons bay.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[Dave Kearton]

"Andrew Toppan" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:14:52 +1030, "Dave Kearton"
> > wrote:
>
> >And is the lack of a bomb bay a serious shortfall ?
>
> A moot point, since the proposal does indeed have an internal weapons bay.
>
> --
> Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
>



Yes, thanks - just read that yesterday - learning all the time.



Cheers


Dave Kearton

[user]

Variations of this post have been seen on here about MMA for a few
months now...from an end user, E-1 to MMCO standpoint, the 737 is
nothing more than a "cash cow". It doesn't even come close to the
capabilities of even a P-3C Update 1, let alone UIII or even AIP. Sure
there is a big "technology" improvement, but do we really need it???
I understand the legacy issues (money) of continuing to support the
P-3, but spending millions on engines, airframe (CWS) and mission
avionics upgrades is much better than spending billions on the MMA
737. How much improvement over current capabilities for USW, ASW, BDA,
OTH targeting, and SAR can the MMA promise? I'm sure the cost/benefit
analysis figures have been manipulated to show MMA wins, but you can
manipulate figures to show whatever you want. Do current MMA proposals
prove the 737 is capable of carrying and delivering SLAM-ER, Harpoon,
Maverick, Mines, Rockeye, Torpedoes, MK-82-84 and yes Dorothy even
Nukes (practicing A10 loads were fun in the 80's while deployed to
Japan, we had to go to PI to do them). Hows about SAR? Will the 737
be able to drop supplies/rafts/etc, loiter, slowly for long periods
while waiting for maritime rescue? Not to mention FMS, will other
countries subsidize the future 737 MMA platforms, like they do with
the P3 MPA? Remember the survivability mod on the P3? (foam in the
tanks, ALQ-157 Matador, ALQ-158 bugeye antennas, ALE47/49). Is this
planned for the 737 MMA? OBTW, is the 737 MMA even capable of flying
the MAD profiles that the P3 and even NIMROD fly? Time to take a step
back, and stop thinking out of the box. Sometimes it's good to stay in
the box and improve on a program thats working and proven succesfull,
rather than completely changing it for the sake of Boeing and the
FITREPS of the PMA guys (sorry Joe). The best solution would be to go
back in time to the late 80's and early 90's and resurrect the P7
LRAACA program, or even the then Lockheed/Boeing proposed P-4. If not
that, then spend millions on the current P3 and put new -425 engines,
Sundstrand props (look at E2C/T56/8 blade prop), rewing it, and do
block upgrades on mission avionics. A big area to look at is the
basing and support. All 4 major CPRW bases here in the states have
AIMD's and Depot support for the P3, this alone will cost billions to
replace. What the F... are you thinking about? Restructuring the
entire logistics support to make it contractor support? What about
training? Will the 2,500+ Officers and enlisted that go through the
NAMTRA's and FASO's annually at Whidbey/JAX/Brunswick all of a sudden
go away? Will maintenance all be contract? The big question here is
technology improvement and "bang for the buck". I insist the 737 is
the wrong way to go for all the above reasons.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:08:10 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
> wrote:

>JD wrote:
>> I was checking out the new Naval Proceedings (I'm a new subscriber)
>> and saw an advertisement for the 737 as a maritime patrol aircraft
>> complete with hard points and weapons. It looks pretty cool, but I
>> was surprised.
>> Does anyone have it in their present inventory or is it merely a
>> proposal to replace the aging P-3?
>
>It's one of two candiates for the Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft. The
>other, from Lock-Mart, is yet another P-3 rebuild called Orion-21.
>
>The 737 MMA is based on the 737-800 but has a bunch of modifications,
>including a -900's wings, heavier gear, and a weapon bay forward of the wing
>carry-through.
>
>Indonesia uses (or at elats used to use) three older 737-200s for maritime
>surface patrol, with side-looking radar and a camera (plus maybe some SIGINT
>gear). Obviously MA is more elaborate.

[s.p.i.]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message et>...
> JD wrote:
> > I was checking out the new Naval Proceedings (I'm a new subscriber)
> > and saw an advertisement for the 737 as a maritime patrol aircraft
> > complete with hard points and weapons. It looks pretty cool, but I
> > was surprised.
> > Does anyone have it in their present inventory or is it merely a
> > proposal to replace the aging P-3?
>
> It's one of two candiates for the Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft. The
> other, from Lock-Mart, is yet another P-3 rebuild called Orion-21.
>
> The 737 MMA is based on the 737-800 but has a bunch of modifications,
> including a -900's wings, heavier gear, and a weapon bay forward of the wing
> carry-through.
>
> Indonesia uses (or at elats used to use) three older 737-200s for maritime
> surface patrol, with side-looking radar and a camera (plus maybe some SIGINT
> gear). Obviously MA is more elaborate.
More Faux Warbird Mania. At least the Navy is showing the good sense
to not expect the MMA to operate over hot battlefields like the ACS
and MC2A are expected to...(AWST 10/13/03)
"Navy officials also are refocusing the aircraft's role, after the P-3
community in recent years watched its mission migrate from
anti-submarine warfare to overland targeting. MMA's core role will be
anti-submarine warfare, stresses Rear Adm. Mark P. Fitzgerald, the
service's air warfare director. Overland targeting will be taken up by
UAVs, either a low-flying tactical system or the high-flying Broad
Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) system the service hopes to buy
soon. Although special operations forces have indicated they'd much
rather work with a P-3-type aircraft than an unmanned system,
Fitzgerald stressed that overland targeting "is not a core area" for
the system."

I really wonder what kind of climb/endurance performance the 737 MMA
would have on 1 engine climbing off the deck as depicted and at the
outer stretches of its mission radius with those doors stuck open?
Also those low slung CFMs would be a limiting factor at any field
where FOD would be problem...something that could happen in wartime at
unimproved or damaged fields.
The next time you are at an airport take a good look into the intakes
on some of the 73s at the gates and notice how many have dings blended
out of the fan blades

[user]

Good points SPI,
The quote you posted about core areas was very relevant and added to
the arguement against the 737 MMA too. I take from that quote that
there is a lot of skepticism and "hope" for what the envisioned Navy
airborne surveillance mission will be. The arguement for 737 MMA and
the cost involved just isn't convincing enough to a lot of us. I'd
like to see in print the opinions of the warfighters on this issue,
not just the PMA and industry opinions, any idea where I could look?
(I'll start with AWST)

On 10 Dec 2003 01:07:42 -0800, (s.p.i.)
wrote:

>"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message et>...
>> JD wrote:
>> > I was checking out the new Naval Proceedings (I'm a new subscriber)
>> > and saw an advertisement for the 737 as a maritime patrol aircraft
>> > complete with hard points and weapons. It looks pretty cool, but I
>> > was surprised.
>> > Does anyone have it in their present inventory or is it merely a
>> > proposal to replace the aging P-3?
>>
>> It's one of two candiates for the Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft. The
>> other, from Lock-Mart, is yet another P-3 rebuild called Orion-21.
>>
>> The 737 MMA is based on the 737-800 but has a bunch of modifications,
>> including a -900's wings, heavier gear, and a weapon bay forward of the wing
>> carry-through.
>>
>> Indonesia uses (or at elats used to use) three older 737-200s for maritime
>> surface patrol, with side-looking radar and a camera (plus maybe some SIGINT
>> gear). Obviously MA is more elaborate.
>More Faux Warbird Mania. At least the Navy is showing the good sense
>to not expect the MMA to operate over hot battlefields like the ACS
>and MC2A are expected to...(AWST 10/13/03)
>"Navy officials also are refocusing the aircraft's role, after the P-3
>community in recent years watched its mission migrate from
>anti-submarine warfare to overland targeting. MMA's core role will be
>anti-submarine warfare, stresses Rear Adm. Mark P. Fitzgerald, the
>service's air warfare director. Overland targeting will be taken up by
>UAVs, either a low-flying tactical system or the high-flying Broad
>Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) system the service hopes to buy
>soon. Although special operations forces have indicated they'd much
>rather work with a P-3-type aircraft than an unmanned system,
>Fitzgerald stressed that overland targeting "is not a core area" for
>the system."
>
>I really wonder what kind of climb/endurance performance the 737 MMA
>would have on 1 engine climbing off the deck as depicted and at the
>outer stretches of its mission radius with those doors stuck open?
>Also those low slung CFMs would be a limiting factor at any field
>where FOD would be problem...something that could happen in wartime at
>unimproved or damaged fields.
>The next time you are at an airport take a good look into the intakes
>on some of the 73s at the gates and notice how many have dings blended
>out of the fan blades

[Ogden Johnson III]

user > wrote:

>Variations of this post have been seen on here about MMA for a few
>months now...from an end user, E-1 to MMCO standpoint, the 737 is
>nothing more than a "cash cow". It doesn't even come close to the
>capabilities of even a P-3C Update 1, let alone UIII or even AIP. Sure
>there is a big "technology" improvement, but do we really need it???
>I understand the legacy issues (money) of continuing to support the
>P-3, but spending millions on engines, airframe (CWS) and mission
>avionics upgrades is much better than spending billions on the MMA
>737. How much improvement over current capabilities for USW, ASW, BDA,
>OTH targeting, and SAR can the MMA promise? I'm sure the cost/benefit
>analysis figures have been manipulated to show MMA wins, but you can
>manipulate figures to show whatever you want. Do current MMA proposals
>prove the 737 is capable of carrying and delivering SLAM-ER, Harpoon,
>Maverick, Mines, Rockeye, Torpedoes, MK-82-84 and yes Dorothy even
>Nukes (practicing A10 loads were fun in the 80's while deployed to
>Japan, we had to go to PI to do them). Hows about SAR? Will the 737
>be able to drop supplies/rafts/etc, loiter, slowly for long periods
>while waiting for maritime rescue? Not to mention FMS, will other
>countries subsidize the future 737 MMA platforms, like they do with
>the P3 MPA? Remember the survivability mod on the P3? (foam in the
>tanks, ALQ-157 Matador, ALQ-158 bugeye antennas, ALE47/49). Is this
>planned for the 737 MMA? OBTW, is the 737 MMA even capable of flying
>the MAD profiles that the P3 and even NIMROD fly? Time to take a step
>back, and stop thinking out of the box. Sometimes it's good to stay in
>the box and improve on a program thats working and proven succesfull,
>rather than completely changing it for the sake of Boeing and the
>FITREPS of the PMA guys (sorry Joe). The best solution would be to go
>back in time to the late 80's and early 90's and resurrect the P7
>LRAACA program, or even the then Lockheed/Boeing proposed P-4. If not
>that, then spend millions on the current P3 and put new -425 engines,
>Sundstrand props (look at E2C/T56/8 blade prop), rewing it, and do
>block upgrades on mission avionics. A big area to look at is the
>basing and support. All 4 major CPRW bases here in the states have
>AIMD's and Depot support for the P3, this alone will cost billions to
>replace. What the F... are you thinking about? Restructuring the
>entire logistics support to make it contractor support? What about
>training? Will the 2,500+ Officers and enlisted that go through the
>NAMTRA's and FASO's annually at Whidbey/JAX/Brunswick all of a sudden
>go away? Will maintenance all be contract? The big question here is
>technology improvement and "bang for the buck". I insist the 737 is
>the wrong way to go for all the above reasons.

I am sure there are some good points in there somewhere, but without
any organization and paragraphing of your arguments, I'm having a
devil of a problem separating them out.

You can be sure that Boeing is organizing and paragraphing *their*
arguments *for* buying the 737 airframe as a P-3 follow-on, making it
easy for the people they are trying to reach [top level DoD/DoN folks
and Congress] to read and think about what Boeing is saying.
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]

[Andrew Toppan]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 06:53:39 GMT, user > wrote:

>737. How much improvement over current capabilities for USW, ASW, BDA,
>OTH targeting, and SAR can the MMA promise?

(1) More to the point: the replacement aircraft (whatever it is) will be able
to fly. The P-3s are excessively old and will soon be unable to do so.
Therefore, a replacement in some form is *required*.

(2) The capabilities of the replacement aircraft will be different than the
capabilities of the P-3. This is quite intentional, since the mission of the
P-3 has changed A LOT in recent years. The old mission of hunting Soviet
submarines is obsolete. If the aircraft do not adapt, they will not continue
to exist.

(3) Finally, there's the question of *which* aircraft will fill the MMA role.
The 737 is *one* of several proposals. If you don't like the 737, pick one of
the others.

It seems that you do not understand (1) and (2). And, finally, "change
happens". Obviously you do not want change, so you will never be happy, no
matter what is done.


--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[Andrew Toppan]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:02:25 GMT, user > wrote:

>airborne surveillance mission will be. The arguement for 737 MMA and
>the cost involved just isn't convincing enough to a lot of us. I'd

So what is your proposed alternative?

Keep flying the P-3s forever, even when they start falling apart?

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[Darrell A. Larose]

Andrew Toppan ) writes:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:02:25 GMT, user > wrote:
>
>>airborne surveillance mission will be. The arguement for 737 MMA and
>>the cost involved just isn't convincing enough to a lot of us. I'd
>
> So what is your proposed alternative?
>
> Keep flying the P-3s forever, even when they start falling apart?
>
That's what we do up here in Canada...

[Thomas Schoene]

Andrew Toppan wrote:

> (3) Finally, there's the question of *which* aircraft will fill the
> MMA role. The 737 is *one* of several proposals. If you don't like
> the 737, pick one of the others.

Actually, there is only one remaining alternative, after the last
downselect. Lockheed Martin's Orion-21 is pretty much exactly what these
folks say they want -- a rewinged P-3C AIP with some newer avionics and
revised wing stations.

The debate here is probably going to be speed vs cost. The P-3 rewing has
to be the cheap option (they're even recycling the current engines). OTOH,
the P-3 is slow, and has been handicappd by this in some recent operations.
And the last couple fo P-3 life extensions have run into unexpected airframe
issues, so new construction might be desirable.



--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Andrew Toppan]

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:16:48 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
> wrote:

>And the last couple fo P-3 life extensions have run into unexpected airframe
>issues, so new construction might be desirable.

I have a hard time seeing a life extension as being practical, considering the
Navy is cutting the active P-3 force in half, and reducing the deployment
cycle of the remainder, over fatigue issues.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[Thomas Schoene]

Andrew Toppan wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:16:48 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
> > wrote:
>
>> And the last couple fo P-3 life extensions have run into unexpected
>> airframe issues, so new construction might be desirable.
>
> I have a hard time seeing a life extension as being practical,
> considering the Navy is cutting the active P-3 force in half, and
> reducing the deployment cycle of the remainder, over fatigue issues.

Yes, The P-3 service life assssment turned up smoe unpleasant surprises in
terms of fatigue life expenditure.

The idea behind Orion-21 is that rather than patching the trouble spots,
they would just replace the parts that are suffering fatigue problems. I
believe Orion-21 would get an entirely new wing, for example.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[user]

250 to 195 due to FLE issues is not even close to half, Andrew, and I
believe you should reread my previous posts and try again to
understand what I am trying to say. I am not saying it is a good idea
to prolong the P3 to eternity. Rather that the P3 IS adapted to
current missions quite well (everybody knows ASW is currently not the
Primary mission, and I stated other missions in my post the P3 is
currently performing, but it is prudent to retain top notch
capabilities in ASW) If there is anything unclear about my previous
post, that the 737 is not, in my opinion, the answer from a
warfighters standpoint, rather than get personal with me thinking I
don't fully understand the big picture, please get specific with me?
This last post by you and your weak attack on me sounds like you
didn't fully read the post. Try again please?

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:24:22 -0500, Andrew Toppan >
wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:16:48 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
> wrote:
>
>>And the last couple fo P-3 life extensions have run into unexpected airframe
>>issues, so new construction might be desirable.
>
>I have a hard time seeing a life extension as being practical, considering the
>Navy is cutting the active P-3 force in half, and reducing the deployment
>cycle of the remainder, over fatigue issues.

[user]

Again Andy my friend, please reread the post from yesterday. I believe
an updated version of the P-7 LRAACA or the P-4 that were well into
design stages in the 80's are perfect alternatives in my opinion.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:52:51 -0500, Andrew Toppan >
wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:02:25 GMT, user > wrote:
>
>>airborne surveillance mission will be. The arguement for 737 MMA and
>>the cost involved just isn't convincing enough to a lot of us. I'd
>
>So what is your proposed alternative?
>
>Keep flying the P-3s forever, even when they start falling apart?

[user]

Where were the CP-140 Aurora's you guys fly made?

On 10 Dec 2003 23:58:29 GMT, (Darrell A.
Larose) wrote:

>Andrew Toppan ) writes:
>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:02:25 GMT, user > wrote:
>>
>>>airborne surveillance mission will be. The arguement for 737 MMA and
>>>the cost involved just isn't convincing enough to a lot of us. I'd
>>
>> So what is your proposed alternative?
>>
>> Keep flying the P-3s forever, even when they start falling apart?
>>
>That's what we do up here in Canada...
>

[s.p.i.]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message news:<KttBb.7541> It's one of two candiates for the Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft. The
> other, from Lock-Mart, is yet another P-3 rebuild called Orion-21.
>
> The 737 MMA is based on the 737-800 but has a bunch of modifications,
> including a -900's wings, heavier gear, and a weapon bay forward of the wing
> carry-through.
One quibble Thomas. The Boeing offering is the 737-700 IGW.
http://www.boeing.com/ids/allsystemsgo/issues/vol1/num3/story09.html

[s.p.i.]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message news:<KttBb.7541>
> The 737 MMA is based on the 737-800 but has a bunch of modifications,
> including a -900's wings, heavier gear, and a weapon bay forward of the wing
> carry-through.
So I see that Boeing has old info on their website...Sorry about that
Thom.
http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/jun_03_28.php
Its gonna take some engineering to come up with that bomb bay. Also
what about stores separation from the wings? Of course my favorite:
combat vulnerability improvements?
Sure it will have an altitude and transit/sprint speed advantage, but
how will it behave down low? What will ice drag to fuel consumption
below FL100? Low level characteristics seems to be a major issue with
user.

[s.p.i.]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message et>...
> JD wrote:
> > I was checking out the new Naval Proceedings (I'm a new subscriber)
> > and saw an advertisement for the 737 as a maritime patrol aircraft
> > complete with hard points and weapons. It looks pretty cool, but I
> > was surprised.
> > Does anyone have it in their present inventory or is it merely a
> > proposal to replace the aging P-3?
>
> It's one of two candiates for the Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft. The
> other, from Lock-Mart, is yet another P-3 rebuild called Orion-21.
>
> The 737 MMA is based on the 737-800 but has a bunch of modifications,
> including a -900's wings, heavier gear, and a weapon bay forward of the wing
> carry-through.
So I see that Boeing has old info on their website...Sorry about that
Thom.
http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/jun_03_28.php
Its gonna take some engineering to come up with that bomb bay. Also
what about stores separation from the wings? Of course my favorite:
combat vulnerability improvements?
Sure it will have an altitude and transit/sprint speed advantage, but
how will it behave down low? What will ice drag to fuel consumption
below FL100? Low level characteristics seems to be a major issue with
user.

[s.p.i.]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message et>...
>
> The 737 MMA is based on the 737-800 but has a bunch of modifications,
> including a -900's wings, heavier gear, and a weapon bay forward of the wing
> carry-through.

So I see that Boeing has old info on their website...Sorry about that
Thom.
http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/jun_03_28.php
Its gonna take some engineering to come up with that bomb bay. Also
what about stores separation from the wings? Of course my favorite:
combat vulnerability improvements?
Sure it will have an altitude and transit/sprint speed advantage, but
how will it behave down low? What will ice drag to fuel consumption
below FL100? Low level characteristics seems to be a major issue with
user.

[Thomas Schoene]

s.p.i. wrote:
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> news:<KttBb.7541> It's one of two candiates for the Multi-Mission
> Maritime Aircraft. The
>> other, from Lock-Mart, is yet another P-3 rebuild called Orion-21.
>>
>> The 737 MMA is based on the 737-800 but has a bunch of modifications,
>> including a -900's wings, heavier gear, and a weapon bay forward of
>> the wing
>> carry-through.
> One quibble Thomas. The Boeing offering is the 737-700 IGW.
> http://www.boeing.com/ids/allsystemsgo/issues/vol1/num3/story09.html

Old news.

http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/jun_03_28.php

"Boeing is refining its MMA proposal for a design based on the Boeing 737
airliner, but has upgraded its entry from the 737-700 design--which would
have the wings of the 737-800--to a 737-800 aircraft fitted with 737-900
wings."


--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[user]

Right SPI, thanks. Low level characteristics is a big part for MAD
prosecutions, SAR, SSC, etc..Not to mention response time of the CFM's
vs. Props and of course the corrosion concerns.

On 11 Dec 2003 01:01:11 -0800, (s.p.i.)
wrote:

>"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message et>...
>>
>> The 737 MMA is based on the 737-800 but has a bunch of modifications,
>> including a -900's wings, heavier gear, and a weapon bay forward of the wing
>> carry-through.
>
>So I see that Boeing has old info on their website...Sorry about that
>Thom.
>http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/jun_03_28.php
>Its gonna take some engineering to come up with that bomb bay. Also
>what about stores separation from the wings? Of course my favorite:
>combat vulnerability improvements?
>Sure it will have an altitude and transit/sprint speed advantage, but
>how will it behave down low? What will ice drag to fuel consumption
>below FL100? Low level characteristics seems to be a major issue with
>user.

[Darrell A. Larose]

user ) writes:
> Where were the CP-140 Aurora's you guys fly made?
>
They were the last P-3 airframes I believe of of Lockheeds production

[Darrell A. Larose]

Global Security has a good illustration of the 737 MMA at:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/mma-boeing.jpg

or if this wraps try:

http://tinyurl.com/yveo

[Bob Fritz]

Dave et al,

THe allocation of missions to the MMA is different than the old P-3. MMA
is viewed as part of a set of aircraft including the Broad Area Maritime
Surveillanvce UAV and an EP-3 replacement. WHat is called persitent ISR
(Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance) is allocated to the BAMS
UAV. The MMA concentrates on attack missions (ASW, ASUW) and
antisubmarine warfare.

Boeing has been trying to sell the 737 in some guise as an ASW platform
since the 80's. Much of the P-3 mission was flown relatively low and
slow and many thought it could not get down in the weeds like a P-3.
That has abated somewhat and now flying a 737 for the Navy as MMA looks
like an airline pilot career path.

Both BAMS and MMA are likely to be competed and selected this year

Bob

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Brett]

"Darrell A. Larose" > wrote:
| user ) writes:
| > Where were the CP-140 Aurora's you guys fly made?
| >
| They were the last P-3 airframes I believe of of Lockheeds production

The South Koreans bought P-3's off a production line in Marietta,
Georgia in the 1990's.

[Thomas Schoene]

s.p.i. wrote:
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> et>...
>>
>> The 737 MMA is based on the 737-800 but has a bunch of modifications,
>> including a -900's wings, heavier gear, and a weapon bay forward of
>> the wing
>> carry-through.
>
> So I see that Boeing has old info on their website...Sorry about that
> Thom.

What follows is mostly playing Devil's advocate. I'm of very mixed minds on
MMA and don't entirely care for either of the remaining options.

In a perfect world, we'd be looking at a four-engine purpose-built MMA.
Maybe something liek the Jpanese P-X (this link is strictly speculative; it
looks like a P-3 fuselage with swpt wings and jets.)

http://www.strange-mecha.com/jsdf/jmsdf/JMSDF02.htm#P-X

> http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/jun_03_28.php
> Its gonna take some engineering to come up with that bomb bay.

Well, it does miss the wing structures, so it's not that hard. Fortunately,
the weights carried are fairly small, so the 737 MMA doens't have to worry
too much about CG shifts.

> Also
> what about stores separation from the wings?

I'm not sure why this woudl be any harder than for any other plane. Of
course you have to do the clearance trials, but don;t see anything
inherent;y problematic about the 737 that a good strong ejector won't fix.
It's not like the MMA has to worry about weapon release in extreme attitudes
like a fighter might.


> Of course my favorite:
> combat vulnerability improvements?

A concern, of course. But how much survivability does the P-3 itself have?
It's stilll fundamentally an airliner airframe (a 1950s one at that). Basic
things like fuel tank self-sealing and inerting seem obvious, but is any MPA
going to survive well against a determined attack?

> Sure it will have an altitude and transit/sprint speed advantage, but
> how will it behave down low? What will ice drag to fuel consumption
> below FL100? Low level characteristics seems to be a major issue with
> user.

Boeing seems to recognize this. They've been barnstorming one of their
unmodified 737s, letting VP squadron-level folks fly with them and really
wringing out the airframe. One of the things I believe they are
demonstrating is an engine-out climb from low altitude. If it can in fact
climb on one engine at operational weights, that's a pretty good sign.

While there is no doubt a lot of PR spin in the descriptions of these
flights, they certainly give the impression that the plane is agile enough
and has sufficient power reserves to function down low if it needs to. Not
as good as the P-3, and they admit that, but the tradeoff for speed and max
alt is not a simple one.

http://www.stockworld.de/msg/576863.html
http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2003/12/08/daily29.html

and one that predates the most recent round of demos (back when Nimrod was
still an option).

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/70087_boeing13.shtml

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Dave in San Diego]

(Darrell A. Larose) wrote in news:brb7ha$eau$1
@freenet9.carleton.ca:

> user ) writes:
>> Where were the CP-140 Aurora's you guys fly made?
>>
> They were the last P-3 airframes I believe of of Lockheeds production
>

Thought the last of those was the 3 or 4 built for but never delivered to
Pakistan in the early 90s.

Dave in San Diego
worked for the co. that did the maint training on that project.

--
-
"For once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes
turned skyward;
For there you have been, and there you long to return."
Leonardo da Vinci

[s.p.i.]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message . net>...
> s.p.i. wrote:
> > "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> > et>...
> >>
> >> The 737 MMA is based on the 737-800 but has a bunch of modifications,
> >> including a -900's wings, heavier gear, and a weapon bay forward of
> >> the wing
> >> carry-through.
> >
> > So I see that Boeing has old info on their website...Sorry about that
> > Thom.
>
> What follows is mostly playing Devil's advocate. I'm of very mixed minds on
> MMA and don't entirely care for either of the remaining options.

Yeah, its a real Hobson's Choice for NAVAIR. Boeing is only worried
about keeping thier production lines open, and not providing the
warfighters an optimized platform. At least the airframes would be
new(even if the design isn't)which is a big plus over the LM offering.

> > Its gonna take some engineering to come up with that bomb bay.
>
> Well, it does miss the wing structures, so it's not that hard. Fortunately,
> the weights carried are fairly small, so the 737 MMA doens't have to worry
> too much about CG shifts.

True, but its a big notch out of the pressure tube. Floors and
bulkheads will have to be strengthened and all those angles could well
lead to fatigue issues someday.
> > Of course my favorite:
> > combat vulnerability improvements?
>
> A concern, of course. But how much survivability does the P-3 itself have?
> It's stilll fundamentally an airliner airframe (a 1950s one at that). Basic
> things like fuel tank self-sealing and inerting seem obvious, but is any MPA
> going to survive well against a determined attack?
As user mentioned, the P-3 went through some surviviability mods. Sure
the P-3 was a civil design initially, but one that was inherently more
robust than a 737NG. Four engines versus 2 is just one issue,
protection of the electrical system from easy kills is going to be
vital on these glass cockpit designs. Installation of fuel tank foam
on the P-3 as an afterthought cost that platform in terms of
maintenance costs and performance. Yet the DHL MANPADS encounter
vividly shows protection from hydrodynamic ram induced fires will be a
must.
With the change to ops in the littorals, the P-3 successor stands a
much better chance at getting shot at during its career.
Because so many of the missions these civil airframes are expected to
perform have never seen fire in anger, it appears that there is a
dangerous lack of consideration for the combat survivability of the
ACS MC2A MMA KC767 etc. I guess the powers that be are too worried
about getting funded with what they have now than worry about what
they -wrongly- view as a nebulous threat. It will bite somebody in the
ass one day-you heard it here first.
Instead of just focusing on keeping their production lines open, the
manufacturers would do well to start pioneering vulenrability
improvements. Since DHL it can even be seen as a commercially smart
thing to do.

>
> While there is no doubt a lot of PR spin in the descriptions of these
> flights, they certainly give the impression that the plane is agile enough
> and has sufficient power reserves to function down low if it needs to. Not
> as good as the P-3, and they admit that, but the tradeoff for speed and max
> alt is not a simple one.

Since the 737 NG was designed for ETOPS, I'll bet money the
barnstorming has an ETOPS engine out flavor to it. The ability to
maneuver down low with adequate endurance is a big question I have.
The mission is in transition with BAMS however. If it evolves into a
situation where the MMA is mostly a control platfrom for UAVs then the
73 would make the most sense.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

[Darrell A. Larose]

Dave in San Diego ) writes:
> (Darrell A. Larose) wrote in news:brb7ha$eau$1
> @freenet9.carleton.ca:
>
>> user ) writes:
>>> Where were the CP-140 Aurora's you guys fly made?
>>>
>> They were the last P-3 airframes I believe of of Lockheeds production
>>
>
> Thought the last of those was the 3 or 4 built for but never delivered to
> Pakistan in the early 90s.
>
> Dave in San Diego
> worked for the co. that did the maint training on that project.
>
I believe our 3 (140119 - 140121) CP-140A Arcturus TOS 1993, are those
airframes, The fleet of 18 CP-140 Aurora aircraft were TOS starting in 1980

[s.p.i.]

(Darrell A. Larose) wrote in message >...
> Global Security has a good illustration of the 737 MMA at:
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/mma-boeing.jpg
>
> or if this wraps try:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yveo

Boeing needs to update their info(is the old info a sign of the
company's disarray?). Using the 800 fuselage, the bomb bay will be
aft. Either way they are converting the bins. The aft position would
give more volume. Of course thats an even bigger notch out of the
pressure tube.

"Boeing is refining its MMA proposal for a design based on the Boeing
737 airliner, but has upgraded its entry from the 737-700
design--which would have the wings of the 737-800--to a 737-800
aircraft fitted with 737-900 wings. The 737-800 design features
10-foot fuselage extensions, both fore and aft of the wing, that would
allow for more internal mission space, and relocation of the internal
weapons bay (possibly a lengthened bay) from the forward fuselage to a
position aft of the wing. Additional fuel tanks would allow the crew
greater flexibility in managing the aircraft's center of gravity. The
extensions also would provide more surface area for antennas; the
737-900 wing would be internally strengthened to support an extra
10,000 pounds in the aircraft's gross weight"

[Tom Clarke]

They were eventually delivered in late 90s, as I seem to remember. My
squadron did the delivery.

Tom in Pax River
----------------------------------------------------------
"Dave in San Diego" > wrote in message > >>

>
> Thought the last of those was the 3 or 4 built for but never delivered to
> Pakistan in the early 90s.
>
> Dave in San Diego
> worked for the co. that did the maint training on that project.
>
> --
> -
> "For once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes
> turned skyward;
> For there you have been, and there you long to return."
> Leonardo da Vinci

[Thomas Schoene]

s.p.i. wrote:
> (Darrell A. Larose) wrote in message
> >...
>> Global Security has a good illustration of the 737 MMA at:
>>
>>
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/mma-boeing.jp
g
>>
>> or if this wraps try:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/yveo
>
> Boeing needs to update their info(is the old info a sign of the
> company's disarray?).

That's not a Boeing website, you know.

Boeing just isn't publicizing this program much. Neither is LM, for that
matter. Neither company has a dedicated web page for MMA, as far as I can
tell.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Darrell A. Larose]

"Thomas Schoene" ) writes:
> s.p.i. wrote:
>> (Darrell A. Larose) wrote in message
>> >...
>>> Global Security has a good illustration of the 737 MMA at:
>>>
>>>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/mma-boeing.jp
> g
>>>
>>> or if this wraps try:
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/yveo
>>
>> Boeing needs to update their info(is the old info a sign of the
>> company's disarray?).
>
> That's not a Boeing website, you know.
>
> Boeing just isn't publicizing this program much. Neither is LM, for that
> matter. Neither company has a dedicated web page for MMA, as far as I can
> tell.
>
But it's still a pretty good discussion! By the time this is decided it
could be almost any airframe.

[s.p.i.]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message >...
> s.p.i. wrote:
> > (Darrell A. Larose) wrote in message
> > >...
> >> Global Security has a good illustration of the 737 MMA at:
> >>
> >>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/mma-boeing.jp
> g
> >>
> >> or if this wraps try:
> >>
> >> http://tinyurl.com/yveo
> >
> > Boeing needs to update their info(is the old info a sign of the
> > company's disarray?).
>
> That's not a Boeing website, you know.
True, but they still have this out there...
http://www.boeing.com/ids/allsystemsgo/issues/vol1/num3/story09.html

>
> Boeing just isn't publicizing this program much. Neither is LM, for that
> matter. Neither company has a dedicated web page for MMA, as far as I can
> tell.


True too, LM's info on the Orion 21 is vanishingly sparse

[Bob Fritz]

s.p.i. wrote:

>"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message >...
>
>
>>s.p.i. wrote:
>>
>>
(Darrell A. Larose) wrote in message
>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Global Security has a good illustration of the 737 MMA at:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/mma-boeing.jp
>>g
>>
>>
>>>>or if this wraps try:
>>>>
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/yveo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Boeing needs to update their info(is the old info a sign of the
>>>company's disarray?).
>>>
>>>
>>That's not a Boeing website, you know.
>>
>>
>True, but they still have this out there...
>http://www.boeing.com/ids/allsystemsgo/issues/vol1/num3/story09.html
>
>
>
>>Boeing just isn't publicizing this program much. Neither is LM, for that
>>matter. Neither company has a dedicated web page for MMA, as far as I can
>>tell.
>>
>>
>
>
>True too, LM's info on the Orion 21 is vanishingly sparse
>
>
I do not think the final ORD i(Operational Requirements Document) is out
and I don't think there has been any announcement of when an RFP might
hit the street. Until the ORD is complete neither knows quite what the
MMA will be expected to do.

Bob

[Thomas Schoene]

s.p.i. wrote:
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> >...
>> s.p.i. wrote:
>>> (Darrell A. Larose) wrote in message
>>> >...
>>>> Global Security has a good illustration of the 737 MMA at:
>>>>
>>>>
>>
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/mma-boeing.jp
>> g
>>>>
>>>> or if this wraps try:
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yveo
>>>
>>> Boeing needs to update their info(is the old info a sign of the
>>> company's disarray?).
>>
>> That's not a Boeing website, you know.
> True, but they still have this out there...
> http://www.boeing.com/ids/allsystemsgo/issues/vol1/num3/story09.html
>

Well, yes. But it's a periodical newsletter (though it doesn't have a date
on it). What shoud they dio, rewrite all their old press releases and
newsletters every time a program changes? That would sort of undermine the
value of these as historical records, wouldn't it? (Not to mention eating
up huge amounts of resources.)

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Thomas Schoene]

Bob Fritz wrote:

> I do not think the final ORD (Operational Requirements Document) is
> out and I don't think there has been any announcement of when an RFP
> might hit the street. Until the ORD is complete neither knows quite
> what the MMA will be expected to do.

Actually, the program may be further along than you realize. When the
program office updated their web page in September, they had released a
draft ORD and were on schdule for DAB Milestone B review by the end of 2003,
with source selection scheduled for early 2004.

http://mmaprogram.nawcad.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=programstatus.main&ma
kerand=yes

From this press release, the RFP apparently went out in late October.

http://www.dcmilitary.com/navy/tester/8_44/national_news/26109-1.html

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[s.p.i.]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message t>...
> s.p.i. wrote:
> > "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> > >...
> >> s.p.i. wrote:
> >>> (Darrell A. Larose) wrote in message
> >>> >...
> >>>> Global Security has a good illustration of the 737 MMA at:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/mma-boeing.jp
> >> g
> >>>>
> >>>> or if this wraps try:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://tinyurl.com/yveo
> >>>
> >>> Boeing needs to update their info(is the old info a sign of the
> >>> company's disarray?).
> >>
> >> That's not a Boeing website, you know.
> > True, but they still have this out there...
> > http://www.boeing.com/ids/allsystemsgo/issues/vol1/num3/story09.html
> >
>
> Well, yes. But it's a periodical newsletter (though it doesn't have a date
> on it). What shoud they dio, rewrite all their old press releases and
> newsletters every time a program changes? That would sort of undermine the
> value of these as historical records, wouldn't it? (Not to mention eating
> up huge amounts of resources.)

Well, I'm certainly on record for maintaining historical posterity...
However, this is as much about commercial marketing for commercial
purposes (selling 737 NGs)so I'm pretty surprised they haven't touted
thier offering more.
For a view on the cynical nature of these companies'(one of them at
least) aircraft offerings for a current project, check this out:
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/defense/031211.asp

[Thomas Schoene]

s.p.i. wrote:

> Well, I'm certainly on record for maintaining historical posterity...
> However, this is as much about commercial marketing for commercial
> purposes (selling 737 NGs)so I'm pretty surprised they haven't touted
> thier offering more.

I think the Boeing plan is to concentrate more on swaying the actual
users -- hence the barnstorming trips. IMO, this is probably a better (or
at least more palatable) way to spend their marketing money.

> For a view on the cynical nature of these companies'(one of them at
> least) aircraft offerings for a current project, check this out:
> http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/defense/031211.asp

I'm not quite sure what lesson is to be drawn here. Cost vs performance is a
perfectly valid issue. As long as they fulfil the threshold requirements,
there's always a trade space where aircraft performance can be balanced
against cost.

I will point out the Lexington is not an unbiased source. They are,
frankly, paid marketeers. (I know, I've been in a similar business myself,
and our group did some business with Lexington.)

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[s.p.i.]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message . net>...
> s.p.i. wrote:
>
> > Well, I'm certainly on record for maintaining historical posterity...
> > However, this is as much about commercial marketing for commercial
> > purposes (selling 737 NGs)so I'm pretty surprised they haven't touted
> > thier offering more.
>
> I think the Boeing plan is to concentrate more on swaying the actual
> users -- hence the barnstorming trips. IMO, this is probably a better (or
> at least more palatable) way to spend their marketing money.
>
> > For a view on the cynical nature of these companies'(one of them at
> > least) aircraft offerings for a current project, check this out:
> > http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/defense/031211.asp
>
> I'm not quite sure what lesson is to be drawn here. Cost vs performance is a
> perfectly valid issue. As long as they fulfil the threshold requirements,
> there's always a trade space where aircraft performance can be balanced
> against cost.
The lesson is, when cost becomes the overarching factor in weapons
system procurement, bad things will eventually happen.
Keeping the shareholders happy seems to be a more important
consideration than the combat effectiveness of the airframes being
offered.
Of course ISR assets have always gotten the short shrift when it comes
to survivability. During the Cold War (and even more recently off
Hainan Island), when they met hostile misfortune, it was because of a
miscalculation by one side or the other. Now that they are taking on a
more tactical role, the probability of ISR assets taking fire is
increasing significantly(OP-2E reprise). The role of these aircraft in
achieving combat objectives is also increasing. Given the fact that
only very limited numbers of these aircraft will be procured, and
increasingly very limited numbers of skilled people will be available
to man them, keeping these missions on vulnerable airframes is going
to prove a tragically false economy one day.
Its a bit of a tangential example, but the loss of the Atlantic
Conveyor and the subsequent severe impact to the Brit's operational
plan is one such case of using a vulnerable civil platform in a
hostile environment that turned out very badly.


> I will point out the Lexington is not an unbiased source. They are,
> frankly, paid marketeers. (I know, I've been in a similar business myself,
> and our group did some business with Lexington.)
So do you think Lexington is in the employ of Northrop Grumman?

[Thomas Schoene]

s.p.i. wrote:
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote
>
>> I will point out the Lexington is not an unbiased source. They are,
>> frankly, paid marketeers. (I know, I've been in a similar business
>> myself, and our group did some business with Lexington.)
>
> So do you think Lexington is in the employ of Northrop Grumman?

I think it's possible. Or more precisely, I think NG gives them money and
expects to see favorable comments.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[s.p.i.]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message . net>...
> s.p.i. wrote:
> > "Thomas Schoene" > wrote
> >
> >> I will point out the Lexington is not an unbiased source. They are,
> >> frankly, paid marketeers. (I know, I've been in a similar business
> >> myself, and our group did some business with Lexington.)
> >
> > So do you think Lexington is in the employ of Northrop Grumman?
>
> I think it's possible. Or more precisely, I think NG gives them money and
> expects to see favorable comments.

So, are you-or your employer-somehow affiliated with Boeing? You seem
to favor their MMA offering. BTW I have worked for Boeing,
Gulfstream, LM, and Embraer customers at various times, so I know a
bit about their offerings.
The bottom line is in order to save costs, folks are turning to these
civil airframes and shoehorning them into roles they are not all that
well suited for.
Reading the little info LM is providing on the Orion-21, I see they
want to make it inot a glass cokpit aircraft as well. Will they also
engineer in the requisite toughness for a survivable electrical
system? Or are too many people of the opinion that since no P-3s have
been lost to hostile fire in 50 years, its not something to worry
about for the next 50? If so, they are setting somebody up for
needless losses somewhere down the road.

[dano]

"...since no P-3s have been lost to hostile fire in 50 years..."

I wonder where you got your information from, try
http://www.vpnavy.com/vp26_mishap.html , second entry from bottom. Also,
see http://www.beernabeer.com/First.htm

Cheers,

Dano, VP-26 alumni 83-89




"s.p.i." > wrote in message
om...
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
. net>...
> > s.p.i. wrote:
> > > "Thomas Schoene" > wrote
> > >
> > >> I will point out the Lexington is not an unbiased source. They are,
> > >> frankly, paid marketeers. (I know, I've been in a similar business
> > >> myself, and our group did some business with Lexington.)
> > >
> > > So do you think Lexington is in the employ of Northrop Grumman?
> >
> > I think it's possible. Or more precisely, I think NG gives them money
and
> > expects to see favorable comments.
>
> So, are you-or your employer-somehow affiliated with Boeing? You seem
> to favor their MMA offering. BTW I have worked for Boeing,
> Gulfstream, LM, and Embraer customers at various times, so I know a
> bit about their offerings.
> The bottom line is in order to save costs, folks are turning to these
> civil airframes and shoehorning them into roles they are not all that
> well suited for.
> Reading the little info LM is providing on the Orion-21, I see they
> want to make it inot a glass cokpit aircraft as well. Will they also
> engineer in the requisite toughness for a survivable electrical
> system? Or are too many people of the opinion that since no P-3s have
> been lost to hostile fire in 50 years, its not something to worry
> about for the next 50? If so, they are setting somebody up for
> needless losses somewhere down the road.

[s.p.i.]

"dano" > wrote in message >...
> "...since no P-3s have been lost to hostile fire in 50 years..."
>
> I wonder where you got your information from, try
> http://www.vpnavy.com/vp26_mishap.html , second entry from bottom. Also,
> see http://www.beernabeer.com/First.htm
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dano, VP-26 alumni 83-89
>

mea culpa...You know, when I sent that last post there was a little
nagging feeling that I should've the Market Time histories. May those
souls rest in peace.

However, this simply buttresses my case. Where was this P-3-and also
the only other P-3 combat casualty-lost? In a Littoral conflict. Where
is the MMA expected to spend much of its service life...?

[s.p.i.]

"dano" > wrote in message >...
> Predicting the future...Who'd a thought this little nugget sensor operator
> would have gone from chasing Soviet subs in the North Atlantic to flying ISR
> mission over Afghanistan - in less than 20 years;)
>
> I am heartened a little by the recent DHL incident - I always thought that a
> MANPAD was 100% fatal.
>
> Dano
So Dano, which is your choice? The Boeing 73 variant or the LM Orion 21?

[dano]

Predicting the future...Who'd a thought this little nugget sensor operator
would have gone from chasing Soviet subs in the North Atlantic to flying ISR
mission over Afghanistan - in less than 20 years;)

I am heartened a little by the recent DHL incident - I always thought that a
MANPAD was 100% fatal.

Dano
"s.p.i." > wrote in message
om...
> "dano" > wrote in message
>...
> > "...since no P-3s have been lost to hostile fire in 50 years..."
> >
> > I wonder where you got your information from, try
> > http://www.vpnavy.com/vp26_mishap.html , second entry from bottom.
Also,
> > see http://www.beernabeer.com/First.htm
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dano, VP-26 alumni 83-89
> >
>
> mea culpa...You know, when I sent that last post there was a little
> nagging feeling that I should've the Market Time histories. May those
> souls rest in peace.
>
> However, this simply buttresses my case. Where was this P-3-and also
> the only other P-3 combat casualty-lost? In a Littoral conflict. Where
> is the MMA expected to spend much of its service life...?

[s.p.i.]

"dano" > wrote in message >...
> Predicting the future...Who'd a thought this little nugget sensor operator
> would have gone from chasing Soviet subs in the North Atlantic to flying ISR
> mission over Afghanistan - in less than 20 years;)
At least what has been put out publicly, due to survivabilty
considerations, the MMA won't be doing overland ISR.
> I am heartened a little by the recent DHL incident - I always thought that a
> MANPAD was 100% fatal.
>
It was a miracle that the DHL wasn't fatal. They had no hydraulics,
and the after spar was only moments away from failure. If they had
taken a good gust load the outcome would have been much worse. Like I
said before, those guys need never play the Lotto because they used up
every bit of luck they may ever have.
Of note, the second VP-26 loss sounds like it was a spar failure
caused by fire too. Hydrodynamic ram induced fire I'd bet. Better
protection from hydrodynamic ram fires should be a priority for large
aircraft both military and civil...And of course its a bad idea to
expect large aircraft-especially large aircraft designed for civil
use-to survive over hot battlefields, your OEF experience
notwithstanding.
How much of a maintenance headache has the fuel tank foam been Dano?
Backfitting survivability is always problematic and expensive.

MANPADS are not the only threat. There is this capability coming on
the export market:

"Russian guided-weapons builder Novator is continuing to work, albeit
slowly, on an ultralong-range air-to-air missile, with a version on
offer for export to a select customer set.

Designated article 172, the weapon was included on a model of the
Su-35 derivative of the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker, on display during the
Dubai air show. The export version, known as the 172S1, has a 300-km.
(186-mi.) range, compared with 400 km. for the original version
specified by the Russian air force. The missile, which is also
referred to (perhaps erroneously) as the KS-172, is intended to engage
specific high-value targets such as airborne warning and control
aircraft, air-to-ground surveillance and tanker platforms."

[fudog50]

In my experience S.P.I .,,,the foam in the tanks was part of the
survivability mod done on the P-3's in the mid--late 80's. It was a
huge failure, it disintegrated and plugged up pumps, filters, etc. It
was a sure maintenance nightmare whenever we had to do any fuel cell
repair, or the daily fuel samples showed pieces of foam floating
around in it. The foam was actually in big removable numbered pieces
that fit together like a jigsaw puzzle for each tank, and had to be
removed and stored in a big portable storage tank. It has been removed
fleet-wide by an AFC in the mid 90's because of these reasons.
OBTW, talking about backfitting survivability, the "Matador"
Infrared jammers were the biggest joke I've seen for the P-3's. Around
the same timeframe (mid-late 80's to the mid 90's), whichever squadron
would deploy to SWA, would be issued about 4 of these systems, along
with chaff/flare pods that were wing rack mounted. We could never get
them to work, tried like hell, found many discrepancies, ordered many
parts. Eventually, we would just deploy with 4 tri-walls (about 10,000
lbs. of junk), airlift it to Misawa or Diego, then just let it sit
there in the tri-walls for 6 months then haul it home! You can tell
which P-3's went through this mod by the welded brackets that were
used to mount the Matadors Transmitter, (about 100 lbs each), just aft
of the main cabin door, and on the opposite side of the fuselage.
The current ALQ-157/ALE-47 system (chaff and flare pods are
mounted in the #2 and #3 beavertails, receiver/transmitters are
mounted on the forward and aft radomes) ) being used now are a huge
increase in capability and reliability.

On 26 Dec 2003 23:46:39 -0800, (s.p.i.)
wrote:

>"dano" > wrote in message >...
>> Predicting the future...Who'd a thought this little nugget sensor operator
>> would have gone from chasing Soviet subs in the North Atlantic to flying ISR
>> mission over Afghanistan - in less than 20 years;)
>At least what has been put out publicly, due to survivabilty
>considerations, the MMA won't be doing overland ISR.
>> I am heartened a little by the recent DHL incident - I always thought that a
>> MANPAD was 100% fatal.
>>
>It was a miracle that the DHL wasn't fatal. They had no hydraulics,
>and the after spar was only moments away from failure. If they had
>taken a good gust load the outcome would have been much worse. Like I
>said before, those guys need never play the Lotto because they used up
>every bit of luck they may ever have.
>Of note, the second VP-26 loss sounds like it was a spar failure
>caused by fire too. Hydrodynamic ram induced fire I'd bet. Better
>protection from hydrodynamic ram fires should be a priority for large
>aircraft both military and civil...And of course its a bad idea to
>expect large aircraft-especially large aircraft designed for civil
>use-to survive over hot battlefields, your OEF experience
>notwithstanding.
>How much of a maintenance headache has the fuel tank foam been Dano?
>Backfitting survivability is always problematic and expensive.
>
>MANPADS are not the only threat. There is this capability coming on
>the export market:
>
>"Russian guided-weapons builder Novator is continuing to work, albeit
>slowly, on an ultralong-range air-to-air missile, with a version on
>offer for export to a select customer set.
>
>Designated article 172, the weapon was included on a model of the
>Su-35 derivative of the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker, on display during the
>Dubai air show. The export version, known as the 172S1, has a 300-km.
>(186-mi.) range, compared with 400 km. for the original version
>specified by the Russian air force. The missile, which is also
>referred to (perhaps erroneously) as the KS-172, is intended to engage
>specific high-value targets such as airborne warning and control
>aircraft, air-to-ground surveillance and tanker platforms."

[dano]

I am truly torn...I have 5800+ hours in Lockheed's lowest MPA bid, but I
think the case for a 737 frame is also strong. Since I'm a sensor operator,
I am more interested in what's in the tube. I would imagine with a larger
tube the 737 would be more versitile and the logistics might be easier (COTS
A&P) but there would have to be some new infrastructure (i.e. GSE, hangars,
etc).

In the end, it will all come down to which pile has the smaller number of
beans.

Dano


"s.p.i." > wrote in message
om...
> "dano" > wrote in message
>...
> > Predicting the future...Who'd a thought this little nugget sensor
operator
> > would have gone from chasing Soviet subs in the North Atlantic to flying
ISR
> > mission over Afghanistan - in less than 20 years;)
> >
> > I am heartened a little by the recent DHL incident - I always thought
that a
> > MANPAD was 100% fatal.
> >
> > Dano
> So Dano, which is your choice? The Boeing 73 variant or the LM Orion 21?

[fudog50]

COTS is the worst thing ever thought up, from a
maintenance/logistics standpoint. It all boils down to "pay me now, or
pay me later". COTS works well from an operational standpoint if it
can be integrated properly, but then never gets supported from a
maintenance training standpoint. Also, the TAT of COTS is so high, we
end up robbing birds at home to support deployed mission assetts, due
to inadequate sparing of COTS. #1 complaint and priority of CPWP-10 is
"inadequate support and high TAT of COTS". Of course the P-3 AW's and
EP-3 8284's and EWOPS don't see this, all they care about is if their
stuff works or not, as it should be. It really scares me that the push
for COTS and O to D maintenance is so short sighted. I believe it is
much better to maintain the status quo and make military
aviation/avionics self supportive and not rely so much on contract and
depot (civilian) support.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:39:16 -1000, "dano" >
wrote:

>I am truly torn...I have 5800+ hours in Lockheed's lowest MPA bid, but I
>think the case for a 737 frame is also strong. Since I'm a sensor operator,
>I am more interested in what's in the tube. I would imagine with a larger
>tube the 737 would be more versitile and the logistics might be easier (COTS
>A&P) but there would have to be some new infrastructure (i.e. GSE, hangars,
>etc).
>
>In the end, it will all come down to which pile has the smaller number of
>beans.
>
>Dano
>
>
>"s.p.i." > wrote in message
om...
>> "dano" > wrote in message
>...
>> > Predicting the future...Who'd a thought this little nugget sensor
>operator
>> > would have gone from chasing Soviet subs in the North Atlantic to flying
>ISR
>> > mission over Afghanistan - in less than 20 years;)
>> >
>> > I am heartened a little by the recent DHL incident - I always thought
>that a
>> > MANPAD was 100% fatal.
>> >
>> > Dano
>> So Dano, which is your choice? The Boeing 73 variant or the LM Orion 21?
>

[Thomas Schoene]

s.p.i. wrote:
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> . net>...
>> s.p.i. wrote:
>>> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote
>>>
>>>> I will point out the Lexington is not an unbiased source. They
>>>> are,
>>>> frankly, paid marketeers. (I know, I've been in a similar business
>>>> myself, and our group did some business with Lexington.)
>>>
>>> So do you think Lexington is in the employ of Northrop Grumman?
>>
>> I think it's possible. Or more precisely, I think NG gives them
>> money and
>> expects to see favorable comments.
>
> So, are you-or your employer-somehow affiliated with Boeing?

No, I am not. I can't speak for the whole company, of course, but I don't
have any knowledge of any MMA interests. I have done some work tangentially
rrelated to MMA, but nothing that gives mae a financial stak in which
company wins.

When I do have a potential conflict (as has happened when I worked for a
company supporting specific Navy commands) I have tried to either disclose
my interests or refrain from commenting.

> You seem
> to favor their MMA offering.

No, I don't. As I've said at least once, I'm largely playing devil's
advocate.

I will admit that I tend to be frustrated when people argue that the way
we've always done things is the only possible answer for the future. So I
do tend to favor "different" over "more of the same."

I guess I'm also optimistic that companies don't offer solutions that they
don't sincerely believe will do the job. Perhaps that's naive of me, but
the conter-arguemrnt that cmoanies offer cut-rate products kowing that they
will result in fatalities does not match the character of the people I've
worked with.

BTW I have worked for Boeing,
> Gulfstream, LM, and Embraer customers at various times, so I know a
> bit about their offerings.
> The bottom line is in order to save costs, folks are turning to these
> civil airframes and shoehorning them into roles they are not all that
> well suited for.

You seem to be forgetting that the Orion was a civil airframe (it's
basically an Electra, after all.) Whether a given airframe is survivable
clearly has a lot more to do with detailed design than a simple "military
vs. civilian" distinction.


> Reading the little info LM is providing on the Orion-21, I see they
> want to make it inot a glass cokpit aircraft as well. Will they also
> engineer in the requisite toughness for a survivable electrical
> system?

Glass cockpits are not exactly foreign to combat aircraft. If the
Orion-21's cockpit systems are related to those of the C-130J, I'd have
fairly high confidence in their durability.

> Or are too many people of the opinion that since no P-3s have
> been lost to hostile fire in 50 years, its not something to worry
> about for the next 50? If so, they are setting somebody up for
> needless losses somewhere down the road.


I'm not sure that "saving costs" isn't a necessary part of the acquisition
process. In a long-term analysis, perhaps we need to shave airframe costs
to ensure there are enough operational aircraft to cover he eventualities.
It's probably impossible to do a complete risk/cost assessment, but you can
certainly argue that having more MMA airframes might be worth a slightly
higher combat loss rate, if those extra planes provide significant
operational advantages.

If, for example, having more MMAs prevents the loss of a single transport
ship carrying a batttalion of troops and equipment, then you may want to
accept losing a couple more MMAs over their combat life.

That's a cold calculation, and unlikely to appeal to the operators, but it
is something planners need to think about.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[dano]

Well, I think I am getting in way over my head with this thread;)

I am just going by the dog and pony that Boeing put on for us peasants. IRT
COTS I was referring more to the airframe and powerplants than the
avionics - I'm pretty sure the stuff I operated was not COTS (SS-3)!

BTW, greetings from Wing "V." If you are with Wing "X", say hello to the
AWCM. Feel free to write me in a sidebar...dano


"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
> COTS is the worst thing ever thought up, from a
> maintenance/logistics standpoint. It all boils down to "pay me now, or
> pay me later". COTS works well from an operational standpoint if it
> can be integrated properly, but then never gets supported from a
> maintenance training standpoint. Also, the TAT of COTS is so high, we
> end up robbing birds at home to support deployed mission assetts, due
> to inadequate sparing of COTS. #1 complaint and priority of CPWP-10 is
> "inadequate support and high TAT of COTS". Of course the P-3 AW's and
> EP-3 8284's and EWOPS don't see this, all they care about is if their
> stuff works or not, as it should be. It really scares me that the push
> for COTS and O to D maintenance is so short sighted. I believe it is
> much better to maintain the status quo and make military
> aviation/avionics self supportive and not rely so much on contract and
> depot (civilian) support.
>
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:39:16 -1000, "dano" >
> wrote:
>
> >I am truly torn...I have 5800+ hours in Lockheed's lowest MPA bid, but I
> >think the case for a 737 frame is also strong. Since I'm a sensor
operator,
> >I am more interested in what's in the tube. I would imagine with a
larger
> >tube the 737 would be more versitile and the logistics might be easier
(COTS
> >A&P) but there would have to be some new infrastructure (i.e. GSE,
hangars,
> >etc).
> >
> >In the end, it will all come down to which pile has the smaller number of
> >beans.
> >
> >Dano
> >
> >
> >"s.p.i." > wrote in message
> om...
> >> "dano" > wrote in message
> >...
> >> > Predicting the future...Who'd a thought this little nugget sensor
> >operator
> >> > would have gone from chasing Soviet subs in the North Atlantic to
flying
> >ISR
> >> > mission over Afghanistan - in less than 20 years;)
> >> >
> >> > I am heartened a little by the recent DHL incident - I always thought
> >that a
> >> > MANPAD was 100% fatal.
> >> >
> >> > Dano
> >> So Dano, which is your choice? The Boeing 73 variant or the LM Orion
21?
> >
>

[s.p.i.]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
>
> No, I don't. As I've said at least once, I'm largely playing devil's
> advocate.

Me too. I see problems with both offerings...Maybe it will be BAMS to
The Rescue. I had the interesting perspective of seeing both a
next-gen 737 and a P-3 on approach into two seperate airports in view
at the same time a little bit ago. It put a little reality into these
idle ponderings.
>
> I will admit that I tend to be frustrated when people argue that the way
> we've always done things is the only possible answer for the future. So I
> do tend to favor "different" over "more of the same."

Me too(I am proud to say I've been Plonked By Fred). The one major
thing I see here as "more of the same" is the lack of thought given to
the potential of these aircraft taking battle damage.

>
> I guess I'm also optimistic that companies don't offer solutions that they
> don't sincerely believe will do the job. Perhaps that's naive of me, but
> the conter-arguemrnt that cmoanies offer cut-rate products kowing that they
> will result in fatalities does not match the character of the people I've
> worked with.

Boeing's recent corporate behavior doesn't leave me as optimistic.
They have been overly focused on keeping their shareholders
happy-ethics be damned. In some quarters that has been defended, but
there is a real downside.
I'm not saying there is some Oliver Stone-esque corporate strategy to
kill people for for profit; but I will say that Boeing's main
motivation is to keep their civil transport production lines open. Add
in the motivation of those on the military side to keep costs low so
they can get their babies through Congress, and you have a bad
combination.

>
> You seem to be forgetting that the Orion was a civil airframe (it's
> basically an Electra, after all.) Whether a given airframe is survivable
> clearly has a lot more to do with detailed design than a simple "military
> vs. civilian" distinction.

No, I'm not forgetting. Its my point exactly. The detailed designs of
the Boeings and Embraers are based on the possibility of failure, not
damage. Whereas military designs are required by law to undergo live
fire testing, programs such as the MMA, KC767, ACS, et all are
apparently exempt. Yet its these platforms that are being thurst into
new tactical scenarios where they could well take rounds. They will be
WARplanes and should be reagrded as such.

> Glass cockpits are not exactly foreign to combat aircraft. If the
> Orion-21's cockpit systems are related to those of the C-130J, I'd have
> fairly high confidence in their durability.

I can't speak for the C-130J, but the avionics of the F-18 and F-22
are specifically hardened against potential damage.
From what I've personally seen on the Boeing and Embraer offerings,
one round could put them completely in the dark. None these aircraft
are expected to fly that way-and won't for too long. The COTS aspects
of these flight systems is a major selling point, so its apparent that
nothing is going to be done to harden them.

> That's a cold calculation, and unlikely to appeal to the operators, but it
> is something planners need to think about.

Absolutely, they need to think about such things, but historically
planners have not given much regard to aircraft vulnerability. For
instance, it was a big problem in Vietnam and thats why these people
came into existence:
http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/mission.htm.
Even now you get the sense that the people in this business don't get
the respect they deserve:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/aircraft/

For tomorrow, we can only afford "just enough" airframes, manned by
"just enough" people. We won't have the luxury of surplus that we have
enjoyed in past conflicts. So we'd better get it right the first time.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/aircraft/6.pdf