MMA or P-3C

[Marco P.J. Borst]

What do you think of Boeing MMA? Does it really have a future? Or is it
likely that the whole project will be cancelled in the near future in favour
of a P-3C refurbishment program (re-winging, engine overhauls and structure
program)?

A lot of rumours are currently going around on this subject and from a
"money saving" point of view I guess it wouldn't be very surprising if
operational life time will be added to the current P-3C fleet... the costs
(USD 15 million per aircraft) are peanuts when compared to the Boeing MMA...

Regards,
Marco

[Tiger]

Marco P.J. Borst wrote:

>What do you think of Boeing MMA? Does it really have a future? Or is it
>likely that the whole project will be cancelled in the near future in favour
>of a P-3C refurbishment program (re-winging, engine overhauls and structure
>program)?
>
>A lot of rumours are currently going around on this subject and from a
>"money saving" point of view I guess it wouldn't be very surprising if
>operational life time will be added to the current P-3C fleet... the costs
>(USD 15 million per aircraft) are peanuts when compared to the Boeing MMA...
>
>Regards,
>Marco
>
>
>
>
Well the Folks at Pax River are planning hangers for test aircraft in
2008. See http://www.vpnavy.com/aircraft_b737_2004.html

[Tex Houston]

"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
> Well the Folks at Pax River are planning hangers for test aircraft in
> 2008. See http://www.vpnavy.com/aircraft_b737_2004.html
>
>

You really make your argument more credible when you call the aircraft barn
a hangar.

Tex

[Jeroen Wenting]

"Marco P.J. Borst" > wrote in message
...
> What do you think of Boeing MMA? Does it really have a future? Or is it
> likely that the whole project will be cancelled in the near future in
favour
> of a P-3C refurbishment program (re-winging, engine overhauls and
structure
> program)?
>
That will only extend the life of the fleet a few more years... The Orion
fleet is fast approaching its structure life at which point they need
replacement with something.
While I agree the MMA might not be the best aircraft the navy could have
ordered it's the best currently on the market.
The P-7 program revived would be more suitable but likely just as expensive.

Be glad they don't go the way of the Dutch navy and scrap the entire MPA
capability...

> A lot of rumours are currently going around on this subject and from a
> "money saving" point of view I guess it wouldn't be very surprising if
> operational life time will be added to the current P-3C fleet... the costs
> (USD 15 million per aircraft) are peanuts when compared to the Boeing
MMA...
>
That won't save a cent. The 15 million per aircraft will extend the life by
a few years only and not reduce the skyhigh maintenance cost of the fleet.
The MMA will cost more initially but can keep flying for 40 years or so at
lower maintenance cost.
And of course the MMA has parts commonality as well as a common typerating
to the BBJs the Navy already has in their fleet, and with the thousands of
737 in service with airlines, reducing the procurement cost of parts and the
training cost of pilots considerably.

[D]

----------
In article >, "Jeroen Wenting"
> wrote:

> While I agree the MMA might not be the best aircraft the navy could have
> ordered it's the best currently on the market.

Well, to be nitpicky, the MMA is not actually on the market. It has to be
built. It is not simply a converted 737. Boeing actually promised to open
a separate production line. And it requires significant modification and
systems integration.

Late last year, when rumors of large defense cuts were sweeping the Pentagon
(to pay the operational costs of Iraq), the MMA was one of the things
rumored to be on the chopping block.



D