Boeing 737 Maritime aircraft

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.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

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.

user wrote:

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.

I am sure there are some good points in there somewhere, but without
any organization and paragraphing of your arguments, I'm having a
devil of a problem separating them out.

You can be sure that Boeing is organizing and paragraphing *their*
arguments *for* buying the 737 airframe as a P-3 follow-on, making it
easy for the people they are trying to reach [top level DoD/DoN folks
and Congress] to read and think about what Boeing is saying.
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 06:53:39 GMT, user wrote:

737. How much improvement over current capabilities for USW, ASW, BDA,
OTH targeting, and SAR can the MMA promise?

(1) More to the point: the replacement aircraft (whatever it is) will be able
to fly. The P-3s are excessively old and will soon be unable to do so.
Therefore, a replacement in some form is *required*.

(2) The capabilities of the replacement aircraft will be different than the
capabilities of the P-3. This is quite intentional, since the mission of the
P-3 has changed A LOT in recent years. The old mission of hunting Soviet
submarines is obsolete. If the aircraft do not adapt, they will not continue
to exist.

(3) Finally, there's the question of *which* aircraft will fill the MMA role.
The 737 is *one* of several proposals. If you don't like the 737, pick one of
the others.

It seems that you do not understand (1) and (2). And, finally, "change
happens". Obviously you do not want change, so you will never be happy, no
matter what is done.


--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

Andrew Toppan wrote:

(3) Finally, there's the question of *which* aircraft will fill the
MMA role. The 737 is *one* of several proposals. If you don't like
the 737, pick one of the others.

Actually, there is only one remaining alternative, after the last
downselect. Lockheed Martin's Orion-21 is pretty much exactly what these
folks say they want -- a rewinged P-3C AIP with some newer avionics and
revised wing stations.

The debate here is probably going to be speed vs cost. The P-3 rewing has
to be the cheap option (they're even recycling the current engines). OTOH,
the P-3 is slow, and has been handicappd by this in some recent operations.
And the last couple fo P-3 life extensions have run into unexpected airframe
issues, so new construction might be desirable.



--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:16:48 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:

And the last couple fo P-3 life extensions have run into unexpected airframe
issues, so new construction might be desirable.

I have a hard time seeing a life extension as being practical, considering the
Navy is cutting the active P-3 force in half, and reducing the deployment
cycle of the remainder, over fatigue issues.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

Andrew Toppan wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:16:48 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:

And the last couple fo P-3 life extensions have run into unexpected
airframe issues, so new construction might be desirable.

I have a hard time seeing a life extension as being practical,
considering the Navy is cutting the active P-3 force in half, and
reducing the deployment cycle of the remainder, over fatigue issues.

Yes, The P-3 service life assssment turned up smoe unpleasant surprises in
terms of fatigue life expenditure.

The idea behind Orion-21 is that rather than patching the trouble spots,
they would just replace the parts that are suffering fatigue problems. I
believe Orion-21 would get an entirely new wing, for example.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

250 to 195 due to FLE issues is not even close to half, Andrew, and I
believe you should reread my previous posts and try again to
understand what I am trying to say. I am not saying it is a good idea
to prolong the P3 to eternity. Rather that the P3 IS adapted to
current missions quite well (everybody knows ASW is currently not the
Primary mission, and I stated other missions in my post the P3 is
currently performing, but it is prudent to retain top notch
capabilities in ASW) If there is anything unclear about my previous
post, that the 737 is not, in my opinion, the answer from a
warfighters standpoint, rather than get personal with me thinking I
don't fully understand the big picture, please get specific with me?
This last post by you and your weak attack on me sounds like you
didn't fully read the post. Try again please?

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:24:22 -0500, Andrew Toppan
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:16:48 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:

And the last couple fo P-3 life extensions have run into unexpected airframe
issues, so new construction might be desirable.

I have a hard time seeing a life extension as being practical, considering the
Navy is cutting the active P-3 force in half, and reducing the deployment
cycle of the remainder, over fatigue issues.

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message link.net...
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.
More Faux Warbird Mania. At least the Navy is showing the good sense
to not expect the MMA to operate over hot battlefields like the ACS
and MC2A are expected to...(AWST 10/13/03)
"Navy officials also are refocusing the aircraft's role, after the P-3
community in recent years watched its mission migrate from
anti-submarine warfare to overland targeting. MMA's core role will be
anti-submarine warfare, stresses Rear Adm. Mark P. Fitzgerald, the
service's air warfare director. Overland targeting will be taken up by
UAVs, either a low-flying tactical system or the high-flying Broad
Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) system the service hopes to buy
soon. Although special operations forces have indicated they'd much
rather work with a P-3-type aircraft than an unmanned system,
Fitzgerald stressed that overland targeting "is not a core area" for
the system."

I really wonder what kind of climb/endurance performance the 737 MMA
would have on 1 engine climbing off the deck as depicted and at the
outer stretches of its mission radius with those doors stuck open?
Also those low slung CFMs would be a limiting factor at any field
where FOD would be problem...something that could happen in wartime at
unimproved or damaged fields.
The next time you are at an airport take a good look into the intakes
on some of the 73s at the gates and notice how many have dings blended
out of the fan blades

Good points SPI,
The quote you posted about core areas was very relevant and added to
the arguement against the 737 MMA too. I take from that quote that
there is a lot of skepticism and "hope" for what the envisioned Navy
airborne surveillance mission will be. The arguement for 737 MMA and
the cost involved just isn't convincing enough to a lot of us. I'd
like to see in print the opinions of the warfighters on this issue,
not just the PMA and industry opinions, any idea where I could look?
(I'll start with AWST)

On 10 Dec 2003 01:07:42 -0800, (s.p.i.)
wrote:

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message link.net...
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.
More Faux Warbird Mania. At least the Navy is showing the good sense
to not expect the MMA to operate over hot battlefields like the ACS
and MC2A are expected to...(AWST 10/13/03)
"Navy officials also are refocusing the aircraft's role, after the P-3
community in recent years watched its mission migrate from
anti-submarine warfare to overland targeting. MMA's core role will be
anti-submarine warfare, stresses Rear Adm. Mark P. Fitzgerald, the
service's air warfare director. Overland targeting will be taken up by
UAVs, either a low-flying tactical system or the high-flying Broad
Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) system the service hopes to buy
soon. Although special operations forces have indicated they'd much
rather work with a P-3-type aircraft than an unmanned system,
Fitzgerald stressed that overland targeting "is not a core area" for
the system."

I really wonder what kind of climb/endurance performance the 737 MMA
would have on 1 engine climbing off the deck as depicted and at the
outer stretches of its mission radius with those doors stuck open?
Also those low slung CFMs would be a limiting factor at any field
where FOD would be problem...something that could happen in wartime at
unimproved or damaged fields.
The next time you are at an airport take a good look into the intakes
on some of the 73s at the gates and notice how many have dings blended
out of the fan blades