Flying jets at low altitude

[Roy Smith]

It's always been my understanding that jets are inherently uneconomical
to fly at low altitudes because of the amount of fuel they burn down
where the air is thick. Now I read in the NY Times
(http://nytimes.com/2004/06/14/business/14CND-ARMS.html?hp) that Boeing
just beat out Lockheed for an anti-submarine contract, and we're going
to be replacing P3's with 737's. Can you really fly a jet at 200 MSL
efficiently enough to make this make sense?

I'm probably somewhat naive when it comes to stuff like this, but what
was wrong with the current crop of P3's that an avionics upgrade
couldn't fix?

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Roy Smith
> wrote:

> I'm probably somewhat naive when it comes to stuff like this, but what
> was wrong with the current crop of P3's that an avionics upgrade
> couldn't fix?

I think worn-out airframes is part of the problem.

--
Bob Noel

[Kyle Boatright]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Roy Smith
> > wrote:
>
> > I'm probably somewhat naive when it comes to stuff like this, but what
> > was wrong with the current crop of P3's that an avionics upgrade
> > couldn't fix?
>
> I think worn-out airframes is part of the problem.
>
> --
> Bob Noel

Probably true with the current airframe, but it does seem that the low
altitude loiter ability of the Orion or a derivative would be a real plus
compared to a turbofan... Of course, the sub-hunting game may have changed
enough that low altitude loiter is a secondary consideration to some other
combination of factors.

KB

[Bob Moore]

Roy Smith > wrote

> Boeing just beat out Lockheed for an anti-submarine contract,
> and we're going to be replacing P3's with 737's. Can you
> really fly a jet at 200 MSL efficiently enough to make this
> make sense?

I don't think that the primary mission is ASW any more. And
particularly not "MAD trapping" a submarine at 200'. Seems
as if the new mission is "Ocean Control".
I recall back during the late 60's, our squadron tracked a
Soviet Nuc for a solid month as it maneuvered around Guam and
at no time were the aircraft flown below 24,000'.

Bob Moore
VP-21 P-2V '59-'62
VP-46 P-3B '65-'67

[Nick]

Isn't P3's powered by turbines just like the 737's ?

Roy Smith wrote:
> It's always been my understanding that jets are inherently uneconomical
> to fly at low altitudes because of the amount of fuel they burn down
> where the air is thick. Now I read in the NY Times
> (http://nytimes.com/2004/06/14/business/14CND-ARMS.html?hp) that Boeing
> just beat out Lockheed for an anti-submarine contract, and we're going
> to be replacing P3's with 737's. Can you really fly a jet at 200 MSL
> efficiently enough to make this make sense?
>
> I'm probably somewhat naive when it comes to stuff like this, but what
> was wrong with the current crop of P3's that an avionics upgrade
> couldn't fix?

[Bill Davidson]

The Brits have been using the "Nimrod" for many years now, it's a
version of the old Comet 4 engine jet and as good as the Orion. Entered
service in 1969, 10 hours operation.

See:

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/nimrodmr2.html



In article >,
Nick > wrote:

> Isn't P3's powered by turbines just like the 737's ?
>
> Roy Smith wrote:
> > It's always been my understanding that jets are inherently uneconomical
> > to fly at low altitudes because of the amount of fuel they burn down
> > where the air is thick. Now I read in the NY Times
> > (http://nytimes.com/2004/06/14/business/14CND-ARMS.html?hp) that Boeing
> > just beat out Lockheed for an anti-submarine contract, and we're going
> > to be replacing P3's with 737's. Can you really fly a jet at 200 MSL
> > efficiently enough to make this make sense?
> >
> > I'm probably somewhat naive when it comes to stuff like this, but what
> > was wrong with the current crop of P3's that an avionics upgrade
> > couldn't fix?

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Nick > wrote:

> Isn't P3's powered by turbines just like the 737's ?


Allison turboprops, not turbofans.




> Roy Smith wrote:
> > It's always been my understanding that jets are inherently uneconomical
> > to fly at low altitudes because of the amount of fuel they burn down
> > where the air is thick. Now I read in the NY Times
> > (http://nytimes.com/2004/06/14/business/14CND-ARMS.html?hp) that Boeing
> > just beat out Lockheed for an anti-submarine contract, and we're going
> > to be replacing P3's with 737's. Can you really fly a jet at 200 MSL
> > efficiently enough to make this make sense?
> >
> > I'm probably somewhat naive when it comes to stuff like this, but what
> > was wrong with the current crop of P3's that an avionics upgrade
> > couldn't fix?
>