Boeing wins MMA comp

[Neil Gerace]

It was reported in today's paper that Boeing has been awarded a contract to
develop the USN's Orion replacement. LockMart, the other bidder, lost with
its Orion 21.

The new aircraft, like the RAAF Wedgetail AEW&C platform, will be based on
the Boeing 737-700IGW (or BBJ) airframe.

[ian maclure]

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:27:09 +0800, Neil Gerace wrote:

> It was reported in today's paper that Boeing has been awarded a contract to
> develop the USN's Orion replacement. LockMart, the other bidder, lost with
> its Orion 21.
>
> The new aircraft, like the RAAF Wedgetail AEW&C platform, will be based on
> the Boeing 737-700IGW (or BBJ) airframe.

Call me old fashioned but were I loitering at low alt in mid-ocean
I'd want more than two engines available.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Air Force Jayhawk]

The reliability of todays' engines means the penalty of carrying 4
engines is no longer considered necessary.

AFJ

On 18 Jun 2004 23:31:58 GMT, "ian maclure" > wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:27:09 +0800, Neil Gerace wrote:
>
>> It was reported in today's paper that Boeing has been awarded a contract to
>> develop the USN's Orion replacement. LockMart, the other bidder, lost with
>> its Orion 21.
>>
>> The new aircraft, like the RAAF Wedgetail AEW&C platform, will be based on
>> the Boeing 737-700IGW (or BBJ) airframe.
>
> Call me old fashioned but were I loitering at low alt in mid-ocean
> I'd want more than two engines available.
>
> IBM
>
>__________________________________________________ _____________________________
>Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
>

[Neil Gerace]

"ian maclure" > wrote in message
...

> Call me old fashioned but were I loitering at low alt in mid-ocean
> I'd want more than two engines available.

If this were an airliner I'd agree.

[Ian MacLure]

"Neil Gerace" > wrote in
:

> "ian maclure" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Call me old fashioned but were I loitering at low alt in mid-ocean
>> I'd want more than two engines available.
>
> If this were an airliner I'd agree.

So, you believe that low and slow, crankin' and bankin'
is a more benign environment than cruise at altitude?
Not to mention the multiples of normal engine cycles
the MMA wil get in compressed time frames?

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Neil Gerace]

"Ian MacLure" > wrote in message
...
> "Neil Gerace" > wrote in
> :
>
> > "ian maclure" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> Call me old fashioned but were I loitering at low alt in mid-ocean
> >> I'd want more than two engines available.
> >
> > If this were an airliner I'd agree.
>
> So, you believe that low and slow, crankin' and bankin'
> is a more benign environment than cruise at altitude?
> Not to mention the multiples of normal engine cycles
> the MMA wil get in compressed time frames?

That's why they're using the BBJ airframe and not the regular -700 one, I'm
guessing. The BBJ has the fuselage of the -700 but the wings and gear of the
larger -800. Similar to the mods Boeing did to the 747-100 to make the -SR,
for short, frequent cycles.

[Mike Zaharis]

"Neil Gerace" > wrote in message news:<40d57002$0$28948
>
> That's why they're using the BBJ airframe and not the regular -700 one, I'm
> guessing. The BBJ has the fuselage of the -700 but the wings and gear of the
> larger -800. Similar to the mods Boeing did to the 747-100 to make the -SR,
> for short, frequent cycles.

They're not using any -700 airframe, BBJ or otherwise. They're using
an Increased Gross Weight version of an -800 airframe, according to
Boeing's website.

You are correct about the -700 based BBJ, with the -800 wings for the
increased weight limit.

[Neil Gerace]

"Ian MacLure" > wrote in message
...
> "Neil Gerace" > wrote in
> :
>
> [snip]
>
> > That's why they're using the BBJ airframe and not the regular -700
> > one, I'm guessing. The BBJ has the fuselage of the -700 but the wings
> > and gear of the larger -800. Similar to the mods Boeing did to the
> > 747-100 to make the -SR, for short, frequent cycles.
>
> There is a world of difference between the stress spectrum
> inherent in airline usage and the MPA environment.
> Its not just the cycles.

The 747-SR also spent most of its life at low altitude and near-maximum
mass.

[Neil Gerace]

"Mike Zaharis" > wrote in message
om...

> You are correct about the -700 based BBJ, with the -800 wings for the
> increased weight limit.

Hm, well I read that in Australian Aviation, and they're usually pretty
clued up.

[Errol Cavit]

"Ian MacLure" > wrote in message
...
> "Neil Gerace" > wrote in
> :
>
> [snip]
>
> > That's why they're using the BBJ airframe and not the regular -700
> > one, I'm guessing. The BBJ has the fuselage of the -700 but the wings
> > and gear of the larger -800. Similar to the mods Boeing did to the
> > 747-100 to make the -SR, for short, frequent cycles.
>
> There is a world of difference between the stress spectrum
> inherent in airline usage and the MPA environment.
> Its not just the cycles.
> And still doesn't address the engine reliability issue.
> I believe ( and I expect P3 crew community would agree
> with me ) that the redundancy provided by 4 engines is a
> very desirable if not mandatory feature in an MPA.
>
Does anyone know the comparative loss rates for the Atlantique vs P3?


--
Errol Cavit | | "If you have had enough, then I have
had enough. But if you haven't had enough, then I haven't had enough
either." Maori chief Kawiti to Governor George Grey, after the Battle of
Ruapekapeka 1846.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Errol Cavit
> writes
>Does anyone know the comparative loss rates for the Atlantique vs P3?

'Not many' versus 'Not many', but neither have had to do combat AFAIK.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Kevin Brooks]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Errol Cavit
> > writes
> >Does anyone know the comparative loss rates for the Atlantique vs P3?
>
> 'Not many' versus 'Not many', but neither have had to do combat AFAIK.

At least one P-3 was a combat loss over South Vietnam (enemy ground fire,
IIRC); others have participated in combat operations, to include firing SLAM
missiles during the Kosovo operation.

Brooks

[Thomas Schoene]

Paul J. Adam wrote:
> In message >, Errol Cavit
> > writes
>> Does anyone know the comparative loss rates for the Atlantique vs P3?
>
> 'Not many' versus 'Not many', but neither have had to do combat AFAIK.

Pakistan lost one Atlantic (Atlantique?) to the Indian Air Force in 1999.

I'd still be more concerned about operational loss rates, and losing half of
your engines at low altitude woudl seem to be worrisome. But low-level ops
are less common than they used to be, I understand. Also, Boeing has shown
off the ability of a similar 737 BBJ to climb from sea level on one engine
(I think this was at MMA patrol weights), so an engine failure need not be
catastrophic even down low.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[Neil Gerace]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Also, Boeing has shown
> off the ability of a similar 737 BBJ to climb from sea level on one engine
> (I think this was at MMA patrol weights), so an engine failure need not
be
> catastrophic even down low.

I thought all twin-engined airliners were required to be able to climb out
on one engine.

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:08:11 +0100, "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

>In message >, Errol Cavit
> writes
>>Does anyone know the comparative loss rates for the Atlantique vs P3?
>
>'Not many' versus 'Not many', but neither have had to do combat AFAIK.

The P-3s first flew combat in Bosnia, firing SLAMs against Serb positions.

They also flew combat in both Gulf Wars.

Al Minyard

[Ron]

>The P-3s first flew combat in Bosnia, firing SLAMs against Serb positions.
>
>They also flew combat in both Gulf Wars.
>
>Al Minyard

Okay Al, if they first flew combat in Bosnia, then how did they go back in time
to the first gulf war? :) :)

Maybe thats why the Chinese wanted to hold on to that EP-3 for a while, to
discern its time travel capabilities, which we of course stole from the Germans
at some point of course...(chiming in before you know who can)




Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(Ron) writes:
>>The P-3s first flew combat in Bosnia, firing SLAMs against Serb positions.
>>
>>They also flew combat in both Gulf Wars.
>>
>>Al Minyard
>
> Okay Al, if they first flew combat in Bosnia, then how did they go back in time
> to the first gulf war? :) :)
>
> Maybe thats why the Chinese wanted to hold on to that EP-3 for a while, to
> discern its time travel capabilities, which we of course stole from the Germans
> at some point of course...(chiming in before you know who can)

It's all foolishness anyway - the first P-3 combat missions were in
Viet Nam, as part of Market Time. As somebody pointed out, one was
lost to ground fire. If that isn't combat, what is?

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[John Keeney]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:08:11 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>
> >In message >, Errol Cavit
> > writes
> >>Does anyone know the comparative loss rates for the Atlantique vs P3?
> >
> >'Not many' versus 'Not many', but neither have had to do combat AFAIK.
>
> The P-3s first flew combat in Bosnia, firing SLAMs against Serb positions.

Well, P-3s flew combat missions in Vietnam. I don't know off hand
if they ever directly made anything go "boom" but they were in a
position that getting shot at wouldn't have surprised anyone.

> They also flew combat in both Gulf Wars.

And Afghanistan.

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:59:15 -0400, (Peter Stickney) wrote:

>In article >,
> (Ron) writes:
>>>The P-3s first flew combat in Bosnia, firing SLAMs against Serb positions.
>>>
>>>They also flew combat in both Gulf Wars.
>>>
>>>Al Minyard
>>
>> Okay Al, if they first flew combat in Bosnia, then how did they go back in time
>> to the first gulf war? :) :)
>>
OOOOPS, I really screwed the pooch on that one!! :-)

>> Maybe thats why the Chinese wanted to hold on to that EP-3 for a while, to
>> discern its time travel capabilities, which we of course stole from the Germans
>> at some point of course...(chiming in before you know who can)
>
>It's all foolishness anyway - the first P-3 combat missions were in
>Viet Nam, as part of Market Time. As somebody pointed out, one was
>lost to ground fire. If that isn't combat, what is?

Yes, but for some reason they are no considered as such by the USN. They
also flew some very dicey "cold war" missions, but I do not know if they ever
expended any ordnance during those (a lot of buoys got wet)

Al Minyard

[Kevin Brooks]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:59:15 -0400, (Peter Stickney)
wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > (Ron) writes:
> >>>The P-3s first flew combat in Bosnia, firing SLAMs against Serb
positions.
> >>>
> >>>They also flew combat in both Gulf Wars.
> >>>
> >>>Al Minyard
> >>
> >> Okay Al, if they first flew combat in Bosnia, then how did they go back
in time
> >> to the first gulf war? :) :)
> >>
> OOOOPS, I really screwed the pooch on that one!! :-)
>
> >> Maybe thats why the Chinese wanted to hold on to that EP-3 for a while,
to
> >> discern its time travel capabilities, which we of course stole from the
Germans
> >> at some point of course...(chiming in before you know who can)
> >
> >It's all foolishness anyway - the first P-3 combat missions were in
> >Viet Nam, as part of Market Time. As somebody pointed out, one was
> >lost to ground fire. If that isn't combat, what is?
>
> Yes, but for some reason they are no considered as such by the USN. They
> also flew some very dicey "cold war" missions, but I do not know if they
ever
> expended any ordnance during those (a lot of buoys got wet)

Eh? Who says they were not considered as combat actions? They were tasked to
patrol areas where it was possible to get shot at, they got shot at, and one
was shot *down*--hard to get much more "combat" than that.

Brooks

>
> Al Minyard
>

[Thomas Schoene]

Neil Gerace wrote:
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>> Also, Boeing has shown
>> off the ability of a similar 737 BBJ to climb from sea level on one
>> engine (I think this was at MMA patrol weights), so an engine
>> failure need not be catastrophic even down low.
>
> I thought all twin-engined airliners were required to be able to
> climb out on one engine.

Probably true, come to think of it. This was just one of the things Boeing
showed off to P-3 pilots during its barnstorming campaign. I think they
needed to be shown this performance feature, even if it is standard on
twin-jets.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[sameolesid]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message . net>...
> Neil Gerace wrote:
> > "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> >> Also, Boeing has shown
> >> off the ability of a similar 737 BBJ to climb from sea level on one
> >> engine (I think this was at MMA patrol weights), so an engine
> >> failure need not be catastrophic even down low.
> >
> > I thought all twin-engined airliners were required to be able to
> > climb out on one engine.
>
> Probably true, come to think of it. This was just one of the things Boeing
> showed off to P-3 pilots during its barnstorming campaign. I think they
> needed to be shown this performance feature, even if it is standard on
> twin-jets.

Yes FAR Par 25 certification does require the ability to lose an
engine, accelerate, and then LAND! That scenario is whole lot
different than losing an engine while down on the deck on a distant
station.
Its also true that the 737 Next Gen's were designed with ETOPS in
mind. However, that scenario presupposes engine loss in the flight
levels and then the possibility of unpressurized flight at ~FL100. I
might add that the few times the ETOPS scenario has been realized,
fuel consumption has been higher than planned (mainly due to the
unrealistic still air crteria that makes up part of the rule).
That is still a much different deal than losing an engine while
already down low. Operational procedures for this aircraft will have
to take into account the prevention of a "coffin corner" single engine
scenario where the aircraft wont make it home before it runs out of
gas.

[sameolesid]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In message >, Errol Cavit
> > > writes
> > >Does anyone know the comparative loss rates for the Atlantique vs P3?
> >
> > 'Not many' versus 'Not many', but neither have had to do combat AFAIK.
>
> At least one P-3 was a combat loss over South Vietnam (enemy ground fire,
> IIRC); others have participated in combat operations, to include firing SLAM
> missiles during the Kosovo operation.
>
> Brooks

Brooks is contradicting himself here. His previous premise was that
such airliner/faux warbirds would *NEVER* be threatened.
The Navy will have to come to grips with two harsh realities here:
1: The RCS of a rather substantial office building.
2: The "glass jaw" nature of these aircraft in regards to their very
vulnerable electrical and fuel systems. (and the potential of FOD on
less than perfect fields-those CFM Next Gen's are way different than
the JT-8 737's running around Africa)

[Neil Gerace]

"sameolesid" > wrote in message
m...
>
> That is still a much different deal than losing an engine while
> already down low.

But twin-engined airliners have to be able to deal with that too, e.g.
immediately before or after takeoff. And in any case, is 'down low' even the
best place for a maritime patrol aircraft to be?

[sameolesid]

> >That is still a much different deal than losing an engine while
> >already down low.

But twin-engined airliners have to be able to deal with that too, e.g.
immediately before or after takeoff. And in any case, is 'down low'
even the
best place for a maritime patrol aircraft to be?


Your last point is well taken. Changes in operational MPA doctirne are
a done deal with MMA.
That said there is plenty of reason to be on the deck for rigging,
SAR, etc. I don't remember what the max altitude for a MK-46 drop is.
The FAR Pt 25engine loss on take off assumes the aircraft will do a go
around and land. Thats what is way differnt than having to maybe claw
out of the worst of wx- like icing conditions- and then fly hundreds
of miles to feet dry.