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.