737 MMA

[joelpac]

Question for the naval aviators: How is the new 737 MMA going to perform as the
P-3s replacement? I know it's bigger, carries more "stuff" and whatnot, but
from what I know of jet engines (even high-bypass fans), won't it be very fuel
INefficient in the same regime as the P-3 prowls? Cruising along at 1000' or so
and around 200 KIAS? Or is the MMA going to be punching out sonobuoys from a
much higher altitude and at a much higher speed?

Is this aircraft the real answer or is it more taxpayer money into the gaping
maw of the military-industrial copmplex?

[T3]

"joelpac" > wrote in message
...
> Question for the naval aviators: How is the new 737 MMA going to perform
as the
> P-3s replacement? I know it's bigger, carries more "stuff" and whatnot,
but
> from what I know of jet engines (even high-bypass fans), won't it be very
fuel
> INefficient in the same regime as the P-3 prowls? Cruising along at 1000'
or so
> and around 200 KIAS? Or is the MMA going to be punching out sonobuoys
from a
> much higher altitude and at a much higher speed?
>
> Is this aircraft the real answer or is it more taxpayer money into the
gaping
> maw of the military-industrial copmplex?
>
I don't know why you couldn't drop them from 5000ft, I would imagine a
drogue shoot of some kind would slow the impact enough, using the MAD might
prove to be a problem as would dropping a million dollar torp a mile or
maybe just bigger shoot for it also.
As far as cruising they could feather an engine at 5k also, save alot of
fuel. Maybe it is a better deal than what we have now, I don't know. But I
do know that Boeing has fallen on hard times as late, between fuel prices
and Airbuse abuse,
not to mention the F-22 and the tanker deal. Could be a kind of bail-out.
But to know that for sure you'd have to have some knowledge of the Elint
package that would come with it and I haven't seen anything about that. It's
also doubtful we ever will hear about that part of the deal, at least for
quite a while anyway...



T3

[Nemo l'Ancien]

and Airbuse abuse,

> =20
>
Les pauvres petits...D=E8s que la concurrence appar=E2it, ils deviennent =
des=20
pleureurs....

[[email protected]]

The British Nimrod seems to work OK.



On 26 Jun 2004 19:36:06 -0700, joelpac >
wrote:

>Question for the naval aviators: How is the new 737 MMA going to perform as the
>P-3s replacement? I know it's bigger, carries more "stuff" and whatnot, but
>from what I know of jet engines (even high-bypass fans), won't it be very fuel
>INefficient in the same regime as the P-3 prowls? Cruising along at 1000' or so
>and around 200 KIAS? Or is the MMA going to be punching out sonobuoys from a
>much higher altitude and at a much higher speed?
>
>Is this aircraft the real answer or is it more taxpayer money into the gaping
>maw of the military-industrial copmplex?
>

[Pechs1]

joel-<< Question for the naval aviators: How is the new 737 MMA going to
perform as the
P-3s replacement? >><BR><BR>

Better kitchen, prettier 'stews', bigger microwave and vault for the perdium
$$.


P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[JD]

I suspect it's a political decision together with a improvement in
antisubmarine technology (space detection for instance). For sure
political after the F-22 / KC-135 replacement program imbroglio. Strategic
maybe in the sense of more rapid deployment with reasonable fuel efficiency
(after all, it's a twin vs the P3's four engines), good patrol speed with
slight flap deployment. Load carrying ability should be superb, so arm it
to the friggin teeth and add more fuel, zip to the suspect area at jet
speeds and saturate with sonobouys, etc. Pretty cool bird in my opinion.

JD

[steven Vincent]

If the Nimrod is used as a comparison losses in fuel economy at low
speed / loiter are to be balanced by the reduced transit times and
economy of fuel usage in transit.

Of course the Nimrod has 4 engines and does indeed shut 2 down when
loitering in an area.



JD wrote:
> I suspect it's a political decision together with a improvement in
> antisubmarine technology (space detection for instance). For sure
> political after the F-22 / KC-135 replacement program imbroglio. Strategic
> maybe in the sense of more rapid deployment with reasonable fuel efficiency
> (after all, it's a twin vs the P3's four engines), good patrol speed with
> slight flap deployment. Load carrying ability should be superb, so arm it
> to the friggin teeth and add more fuel, zip to the suspect area at jet
> speeds and saturate with sonobouys, etc. Pretty cool bird in my opinion.
>
> JD
>
>

[Jim McCartan]

(Pechs1) wrote in message >...
> joel-<< Question for the naval aviators: How is the new 737 MMA going to
> perform as the
> P-3s replacement? >><BR><BR>
>
> Better kitchen, prettier 'stews', bigger microwave and vault for the perdium
> $$.
>
>
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Plus in-flight movies!

[Mike Kanze]

>Plus in-flight movies!

If they're anything like those we had on the ship they'll suck - or they'll
be the same movie for five hops in a row. <g>

--
Mike Kanze

"[Michael] Moore is Jane Fonda in baggy clothes."

- H. M. Stumpf, 6/23/04 letter to SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE


"Jim McCartan" > wrote in message
om...
> (Pechs1) wrote in message
>...
> > joel-<< Question for the naval aviators: How is the new 737 MMA going to
> > perform as the
> > P-3s replacement? >><BR><BR>
> >
> > Better kitchen, prettier 'stews', bigger microwave and vault for the
perdium
> > $$.
> >
> >
> > P. C. Chisholm
> > CDR, USN(ret.)
> > Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer
>
> Plus in-flight movies!

[John Alger]

On 26 Jun 2004 19:36:06 -0700, joelpac >
wrote:

>Question for the naval aviators: How is the new 737 MMA going to perform as the
>P-3s replacement? I know it's bigger, carries more "stuff" and whatnot, but
>from what I know of jet engines (even high-bypass fans), won't it be very fuel
>INefficient in the same regime as the P-3 prowls? Cruising along at 1000' or so
>and around 200 KIAS? Or is the MMA going to be punching out sonobuoys from a
>much higher altitude and at a much higher speed?
>
>Is this aircraft the real answer or is it more taxpayer money into the gaping
>maw of the military-industrial copmplex?

Most of the sonobouys we jettisoned during my P-3 days (all reserve
time: VP-94) were sent out at altitudes above 10,000' - and a majority
of those above 20K. We spent very little of our time below 10K unless
we were down rigging ships (close fly-bys for ID) or doing some drug
interdiction work. For anyone who never noticed, the weather often
sucks at low altitudes. Higher is definately better, and you can track
'em just fine up high. Got plenty of time in my logbook tracking
Yankees, Victors and at least 1 Echo, not to mention the occasional
LA.

I think the MMA will do just fine. Gets out and back quicker, can stay
on station longer, carries more goodies, better crew comfort (plenty
important on 8-14 hour missions) and has in-flight refueling - all
plusses.

J W Alger USNR(ret) 1310/1325
TA-4J, A-7E, EC-130Q, P-3B
Independent Representative
Excel Communications, Inc.

Do you have a "Plan B"?
From Robt. Kiyosaki's "Guide to Investing" :
Rich Dad said, "The biggest mistake people make is that they work too hard for their money." He went on to say, "Most people do not get ahead financially because when they need more money, they take a part-time job. If they really want to get ahead, they need to keep their day job and start a part-time business." p240
Now seeking representatives in USA, Canada, the UK - and soon GERMANY!
http://www.globalsuccess2000.com/mach1
http://www.globalsuccess2000.net/mach1

[Pechs1]

Mike-<< If they're anything like those we had on the ship they'll suck - or
they'll
be the same movie for five hops in a row. >><BR><BR>

Good ole days, when the moovie was the big reel type, lights out, at 2100,
after last event manned up.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[sameolesid]

John Alger > wrote in message >...
>
> I think the MMA will do just fine. Gets out and back quicker, can stay
> on station longer, carries more goodies, better crew comfort (plenty
> important on 8-14 hour missions) and has in-flight refueling - all
> plusses.
>

It will do just fine because it will be the only game in town
(assuming BAMS doesn't totally eclipse the manned platform concept at
some point). Actually it will do fine because of BAMS.
There are some real drawbacks to this aircraft at this point though.
It can't live down low and slow for very long,and in a single engine
situation could find itself out of gas before it could get back to
feet dry...Ok, it could refuel while airborne, but how many stray
tankers are about in MPA areas of ops?
Unless something is done to harden the fuel and electrical systems
from otherwise inconsequential damage, this aircraft will be a very
vulnerable asset in the coming years. Companies like AGAT and Novator-
not to mention the Chinese- are already marketing long range SAM and
AAM systems that threaten the heretofore "invulnerable" large military
aircraft that have operated mostly unfettered since the end of WWII.
It will be expensive to back engineer such fixes.
Also don't forget these aircraft, like the rest of the Navy, will be
expected to operate in the historically lethal Littorals much of the
time and not well out at sea. The chances of them taking fire is much
greater than the P-3 had to face through most of its lifetime.
Its RCS is huge, and the chances of avoiding those threats will be
much more problematic. I'd say the proposed LockMart SOF "MACK" would
be a much more suitable platform...But of course this MMA contract was
a very overt political gift to Boeing according to AvLeak.

[Elmshoot]

I was talking to a guy at work who is in the reservr P-3 community and has
experience FLYING the MMA he said it is not suitable at low altitude the whole
package is not to standards and is wondering how combat damage resistamt it
will be made.
Sparky
>Question for the naval aviators: How is the new 737 MMA going to perform as
>the
>P-3s replacement? I know it's bigger, carries more "stuff" and whatnot, but
>from what I know of jet engines (even high-bypass fans), won't it be very
>fuel
>INefficient in the same regime as the P-3 prowls? Cruising along at 1000' or
>so
>and around 200 KIAS? Or is the MMA going to be punching out sonobuoys from a
>much higher altitude and at a much higher speed?
>
>Is this aircraft the real answer or is it more taxpayer money into the gaping
>maw of the military-industrial copmplex?

[Henry J Cobb]

Elmshoot wrote:
> I was talking to a guy at work who is in the reservr P-3 community and has
> experience FLYING the MMA he said it is not suitable at low altitude the whole
> package is not to standards and is wondering how combat damage resistamt it
> will be made.
> Sparky

How quickly can you get a handheld SAM through the hatch of a Chinese sub and
ready to fire?

-HJC

[Pechs1]

elmshoot-<< is wondering how combat damage resistamt it
> will be made. >><BR><BR>


Combat damage? From what?

The microwave breaking loose and hitting an aircrew on the fott?
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Mike Kanze]

Pechs,

>Combat damage? From what?
>
>The microwave breaking loose and hitting an aircrew on the fott?

No. From further engagements with PLAAF F-8s.

But with combat hardening of the airframe, we could deploy VPF outfits. <g>

--
Mike Kanze

"They had a profile of John Kerry on the news and they said his first wife
was worth around $300 million and his second wife, his current wife, is
worth around $700 million. His intern (with whom he supposedly had an
affair) was worth several more million. So when John Kerry says he's going
after the wealthy in this country, he's not just talking. He's doing it!"

- Jay Leno


"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> elmshoot-<< is wondering how combat damage resistamt it
> > will be made. >><BR><BR>
>
>
> Combat damage? From what?
>
> The microwave breaking loose and hitting an aircrew on the fott?
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

[sameolesid]

(Pechs1) wrote in message >...
> elmshoot-<< is wondering how combat damage resistamt it
> > will be made. >><BR><BR>
>
>
> Combat damage? From what?
>
> The microwave breaking loose and hitting an aircrew on the fott?
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

A few things Pechs. The MMA will be spending a whole lot more time in
the Littorals than MPA's of old. That will put them in near proximity
to a whole host of threats. Als, there is a whole new generation of
threats specifically targing the aircraft that have historically
remained on the perepheries of the battlespace. Apparently some of our
potential adversaries see the center of gravity these aircraft
represent in our new found net-centric ways of war. It appears they
wish to exploit this vulnerability too. Check out some of these links:

http://in.rediff.com/news/2003/oct/21china.htm
There were reports that Pakistan may soon acquire Chinese-made 'AWACS
killer' to counter Phalcons.
According to the reports, Islamabad was eying Chinese-built FT-2000
surface-to-air missile, commonly known as 'AWACS killer'.

http://www.china-defense.com/aviation/plaaf-ops/plaaf-ops-21.html
China has also developed the FT-2000 mobile SAM. This SAM is based on
the S-300 and is designed to engage radiating aircraft, such as
airborne jammers and airborne warning and control system (AWACS)
aircraft. China first tested the FT-2000 in September 1998, then
conducted the first field trials during a series of exercises in 1999.


http://www.vor.ru/science/madeinrus8_eng.html
Russia's latest S-400 "Triumph" air defence system is capable of
hitting AWACS early warning planes.
S-400 is unique for fighting enemy planes. It is designed to hit both
present-day and future means for air attack: tactical and strategic
aircraft, cruise missiles of the "Tomahawk" type and other missiles at
a distance of 400 kilometers.

http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/paris/paris_03/pd1agatpg85.html
If used on a long-range missile airframe, the ARGS-PD could give an
opposing air force the ability to take out strategic targets at
distances outside of the normal interception envelopes of U.S. or
other NATO fighters. Boeing E-3 AWACS or E-8 JSTARS aircraft–platforms
that U.S. forces depend heavily upon in time of conflict–would be
vulnerable as never before.

http://www.stormpages.com/jetfight/wwwboard/2359.html
JANE'S MISSILES AND ROCKETS - MARCH 01, 2004
Novator offers a redesigned KS-172S-1 long-range AAM
Piotr Butowski

Sukhoi has displayed a model of the Su-35 multirole fighter carrying
under its wings two KS-172S-1 ultra-long range air-to-air missiles,
writes Piotr Butowski. The weapon is an export variant of a missile
originally offered to the Russian Air Force by the Novator Company of
Yekaterinburg.
Maximum range of the KS-172S-1 export variant is 300km; the version
proposed for Russian air forces is believed to have a range of 400km.
The missile will be used against air targets flying at altitudes from
3m to 30km with speeds up to 4,000km/h and manoeuvring at up to 12g.
Typical targets could include all types of aircraft (including AWACS
or J-STARS platforms, tankers, reconnaissance and electronic-warfare
aircraft), cruise missiles, as well as long and medium-range
anti-aircraft missiles which pose a threat to the KS-172-armed
fighter.

[sameolesid]

(Elmshoot) wrote in message >...
> I was talking to a guy at work who is in the reservr P-3 community and has
> experience FLYING the MMA he said it is not suitable at low altitude the whole
> package is not to standards and is wondering how combat damage resistamt it
> will be made.
As one who is up close and personal with the 737 next gens every day
(along with 767's as well), I can tell you that these aircraft are
VERY vulnerable to any little bit of damage. They were designed for
component FAILURE and will not be tolerant at all to any rounds or
shrapnel thrown their way.
At a minimum the MMA *should* get ballistic protection to the E&E bay
and some of the vital cable runs...Glass cockpit aircraft won't fly
long without electrical power...And also some advanced protection
against hydrodynamic ram.

[Pechs1]

Mike-<< No. From further engagements with PLAAF F-8s. >><BR><BR>

yep, I'll take a P-3 weenie in a fight with the chinese 'fighter pilots'
anyday.

When the balloon goes up with China, it's going to be another "Marianna's
'spicey turkey with almonds' shoot"-
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

also-<< Als, there is a whole new generation of
threats specifically targing the aircraft that have historically
remained on the perepheries of the battlespace. >><BR><BR>

AWACS and MPA are not the same thing. An AWACS loitering at 30,000 feet and a
MPA wandering around in the weeds are not the same.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[nafod40]

Pechs1 wrote:
> Mike-<< No. From further engagements with PLAAF F-8s. >><BR><BR>
>
> yep, I'll take a P-3 weenie in a fight with the chinese 'fighter pilots'
> anyday.
>
> When the balloon goes up with China, it's going to be another "Marianna's
> 'spicey turkey with almonds' shoot"-

Kung Pao Turkey?

[John R Weiss]

"nafod40" > wrote...
>>
>> When the balloon goes up with China, it's going to be another "Marianna's
>> 'spicey turkey with almonds' shoot"-
>
> Kung Pao Turkey?

....with bamboo shoots.

[sameolesid]

(Pechs1) wrote in message >...
> also-<< Als, there is a whole new generation of
> threats specifically targing the aircraft that have historically
> remained on the perepheries of the battlespace. >><BR><BR>
>
> AWACS and MPA are not the same thing. An AWACS loitering at 30,000 feet and a
> MPA wandering around in the weeds are not the same.
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

By all accounts the MMA won't be spending nearly the same amount of
time down in the weeds. I will opine this 737 variant will spend very
littel time below FL210.
Indeed Mr. Alger had this to say about his P-3 experience:
"Most of the sonobouys we jettisoned during my P-3 days (all reserve
time: VP-94) were sent out at altitudes above 10,000' - and a majority
of those above 20K. We spent very little of our time below 10K...."

The MPA days characterized by bear hunts in blue water are done. The
MMA will be spending its time in conditions more like those of Market
Time-and thats where the P-3 suffered its only combat losses. Also,
the MMA will utilized much more in a C4I role and as such will be more
like E-3s instead of P-3s...

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/search/autosuggest.jsp?docid=160905&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aviationnow.com%2Favnow%2Fnew s%2Fchannel_awst_story.jsp%3Fview%3Dstory%26id%3Dn ews%2F06214wna.xml

"However, supporters contend that the Navy's need is for larger,
sophisticated aircraft with the room to increase the crew size,
payload and power. They could then serve as airborne nodes to analyze
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance data direct from the
battlefield without the time-consuming and communications-clogging
option of sending it to facilities in the U.S."

[w4okw]

He is pulling your leg too! No MMAs exist at the moment, although Boeing
made the circuit of VP bases with a 737 during the competition.

The first MMA won't even get to Pax for testing until 2008 or 9 and "the
whole package" hasn't even been firmed up or any metal cut yet.

Makes a great happy hour story though!

Tom
VX-20 Flight Test at Pax

"Elmshoot" > wrote in message
...
> I was talking to a guy at work who is in the reservr P-3 community and has
> experience FLYING the MMA he said it is not suitable at low altitude the
whole
> package is not to standards and is wondering how combat damage resistamt
it
> will be made.
> Sparky
> >Question for the naval aviators: How is the new 737 MMA going to perform
as
> >the
> >P-3s replacement? I know it's bigger, carries more "stuff" and whatnot,
but
> >from what I know of jet engines (even high-bypass fans), won't it be very
> >fuel
> >INefficient in the same regime as the P-3 prowls? Cruising along at
1000' or
> >so
> >and around 200 KIAS? Or is the MMA going to be punching out sonobuoys
from a
> >much higher altitude and at a much higher speed?
> >
> >Is this aircraft the real answer or is it more taxpayer money into the
gaping
> >maw of the military-industrial copmplex?
>

[Elmshoot]

>He is pulling your leg too! No MMAs exist at the moment, although Boeing
>made the circuit of VP bases with a 737 during the competition.

Tom,
I wasn't trying to pull anyones leg. Most readers on this NG know enough to
understand certain assumtions are made. In this case I thought everyone
understood that the plane flown was the proposed MMA a 737. Purported to be
like or similar to the the final product. At this point my buddy who has a butt
load of P-3 time found the planes low altitude handeling unacceptable. I am
taking his comments as sincere and at face value.

Sparky

Sparky

[w4okw]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Elmshoot" >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military.naval
To: >
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: 737 MMA


> >He is pulling your leg too! No MMAs exist at the moment, although Boeing
> >made the circuit of VP bases with a 737 during the competition.
>
> Tom,
> I wasn't trying to pull anyones leg. Most readers on this NG know enough
to
> understand certain assumtions are made. In this case I thought everyone
> understood that the plane flown was the proposed MMA a 737. Purported to
be
> like or similar to the the final product. At this point my buddy who has a
butt
> load of P-3 time found the planes low altitude handeling unacceptable. I
am
> taking his comments as sincere and at face value.
>
> Sparky
>
> Sparky
-------------------tom sez----------------
Understood!

I wonder what his specific handling quality issues were?

The P-3 is no prince in some regards, for instance it has fairly high
control forces and rides like a Humvee, compared to some other large
aircraft such as the Herk. Of
course it wasn't designed to be a comfortable passenger aircraft (in spite
of it's lineage), but a fairly responsive tactical aircraft. I have over
5ooo hours in it and still think it is a lot of fun to fly! Of course I
like the Herk, 707 and CV-880 too, but each has it's foibles. You haven't
had fun until you excite a dutch roll in an 880 or a 707!

I think another issue is that the mission of VP is changing, so taking the
whole mission into account and new sensors, there probably will not be much
low level (200-300) ASW as in the past. I suspect flying the MMA around a
4000 yard mad trapping circle at 200 feet might be a bit nerve wracking!

Tom

[Pechs1]

Saw a piece on the 'tube' abot China's new sub fleet. Maybe put some sting in
the need for new antisub fare to protect the CV, when the balloon goes up over
Tiawan.

A conflict around the Tiawanese straights is not going to be pretty.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer