COTS is the worst thing ever thought up, from a
maintenance/logistics standpoint. It all boils down to "pay me now, or
pay me later". COTS works well from an operational standpoint if it
can be integrated properly, but then never gets supported from a
maintenance training standpoint. Also, the TAT of COTS is so high, we
end up robbing birds at home to support deployed mission assetts, due
to inadequate sparing of COTS. #1 complaint and priority of CPWP-10 is
"inadequate support and high TAT of COTS". Of course the P-3 AW's and
EP-3 8284's and EWOPS don't see this, all they care about is if their
stuff works or not, as it should be. It really scares me that the push
for COTS and O to D maintenance is so short sighted. I believe it is
much better to maintain the status quo and make military
aviation/avionics self supportive and not rely so much on contract and
depot (civilian) support.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:39:16 -1000, "dano"
wrote:

I am truly torn...I have 5800+ hours in Lockheed's lowest MPA bid, but I
think the case for a 737 frame is also strong. Since I'm a sensor operator,
I am more interested in what's in the tube. I would imagine with a larger
tube the 737 would be more versitile and the logistics might be easier (COTS
A&P) but there would have to be some new infrastructure (i.e. GSE, hangars,
etc).

In the end, it will all come down to which pile has the smaller number of
beans.

Dano


"s.p.i." wrote in message
. com...
"dano" wrote in message
...
Predicting the future...Who'd a thought this little nugget sensor
operator
would have gone from chasing Soviet subs in the North Atlantic to flying
ISR
mission over Afghanistan - in less than 20 years

I am heartened a little by the recent DHL incident - I always thought
that a
MANPAD was 100% fatal.

Dano
So Dano, which is your choice? The Boeing 73 variant or the LM Orion 21?