Boeing 737 Maritime aircraft

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message nk.net...
s.p.i. wrote:
(Darrell A. Larose) wrote in message
...
Global Security has a good illustration of the 737 MMA at:


http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../mma-boeing.jp
g

or if this wraps try:

http://tinyurl.com/yveo

Boeing needs to update their info(is the old info a sign of the
company's disarray?).

That's not a Boeing website, you know.
True, but they still have this out there...
http://www.boeing.com/ids/allsystems...3/story09.html


Boeing just isn't publicizing this program much. Neither is LM, for that
matter. Neither company has a dedicated web page for MMA, as far as I can
tell.


True too, LM's info on the Orion 21 is vanishingly sparse

s.p.i. wrote:

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message nk.net...


s.p.i. wrote:


(Darrell A. Larose) wrote in message
...


Global Security has a good illustration of the 737 MMA at:




http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../mma-boeing.jp
g


or if this wraps try:

http://tinyurl.com/yveo


Boeing needs to update their info(is the old info a sign of the
company's disarray?).


That's not a Boeing website, you know.


True, but they still have this out there...
http://www.boeing.com/ids/allsystems...3/story09.html



Boeing just isn't publicizing this program much. Neither is LM, for that
matter. Neither company has a dedicated web page for MMA, as far as I can
tell.




True too, LM's info on the Orion 21 is vanishingly sparse


I do not think the final ORD i(Operational Requirements Document) is out
and I don't think there has been any announcement of when an RFP might
hit the street. Until the ORD is complete neither knows quite what the
MMA will be expected to do.

Bob

Bob Fritz wrote:

I do not think the final ORD (Operational Requirements Document) is
out and I don't think there has been any announcement of when an RFP
might hit the street. Until the ORD is complete neither knows quite
what the MMA will be expected to do.

Actually, the program may be further along than you realize. When the
program office updated their web page in September, they had released a
draft ORD and were on schdule for DAB Milestone B review by the end of 2003,
with source selection scheduled for early 2004.

http://mmaprogram.nawcad.navy.mil/in...status.main&ma
kerand=yes

From this press release, the RFP apparently went out in late October.

http://www.dcmilitary.com/navy/teste...s/26109-1.html

--
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)

s.p.i. wrote:
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
nk.net...
s.p.i. wrote:
(Darrell A. Larose) wrote in message
...
Global Security has a good illustration of the 737 MMA at:



http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../mma-boeing.jp
g

or if this wraps try:

http://tinyurl.com/yveo

Boeing needs to update their info(is the old info a sign of the
company's disarray?).

That's not a Boeing website, you know.
True, but they still have this out there...
http://www.boeing.com/ids/allsystems...3/story09.html


Well, yes. But it's a periodical newsletter (though it doesn't have a date
on it). What shoud they dio, rewrite all their old press releases and
newsletters every time a program changes? That would sort of undermine the
value of these as historical records, wouldn't it? (Not to mention eating
up huge amounts of resources.)

--
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)

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message ink.net...
s.p.i. wrote:
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
nk.net...
s.p.i. wrote:
(Darrell A. Larose) wrote in message
...
Global Security has a good illustration of the 737 MMA at:



http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../mma-boeing.jp
g

or if this wraps try:

http://tinyurl.com/yveo

Boeing needs to update their info(is the old info a sign of the
company's disarray?).

That's not a Boeing website, you know.
True, but they still have this out there...
http://www.boeing.com/ids/allsystems...3/story09.html


Well, yes. But it's a periodical newsletter (though it doesn't have a date
on it). What shoud they dio, rewrite all their old press releases and
newsletters every time a program changes? That would sort of undermine the
value of these as historical records, wouldn't it? (Not to mention eating
up huge amounts of resources.)

Well, I'm certainly on record for maintaining historical posterity...
However, this is as much about commercial marketing for commercial
purposes (selling 737 NGs)so I'm pretty surprised they haven't touted
thier offering more.
For a view on the cynical nature of these companies'(one of them at
least) aircraft offerings for a current project, check this out:
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/defense/031211.asp

s.p.i. wrote:

Well, I'm certainly on record for maintaining historical posterity...
However, this is as much about commercial marketing for commercial
purposes (selling 737 NGs)so I'm pretty surprised they haven't touted
thier offering more.

I think the Boeing plan is to concentrate more on swaying the actual
users -- hence the barnstorming trips. IMO, this is probably a better (or
at least more palatable) way to spend their marketing money.

For a view on the cynical nature of these companies'(one of them at
least) aircraft offerings for a current project, check this out:
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/defense/031211.asp

I'm not quite sure what lesson is to be drawn here. Cost vs performance is a
perfectly valid issue. As long as they fulfil the threshold requirements,
there's always a trade space where aircraft performance can be balanced
against cost.

I will point out the Lexington is not an unbiased source. They are,
frankly, paid marketeers. (I know, I've been in a similar business myself,
and our group did some business with Lexington.)

--
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)

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message hlink.net...
s.p.i. wrote:

Well, I'm certainly on record for maintaining historical posterity...
However, this is as much about commercial marketing for commercial
purposes (selling 737 NGs)so I'm pretty surprised they haven't touted
thier offering more.

I think the Boeing plan is to concentrate more on swaying the actual
users -- hence the barnstorming trips. IMO, this is probably a better (or
at least more palatable) way to spend their marketing money.

For a view on the cynical nature of these companies'(one of them at
least) aircraft offerings for a current project, check this out:
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/defense/031211.asp

I'm not quite sure what lesson is to be drawn here. Cost vs performance is a
perfectly valid issue. As long as they fulfil the threshold requirements,
there's always a trade space where aircraft performance can be balanced
against cost.
The lesson is, when cost becomes the overarching factor in weapons
system procurement, bad things will eventually happen.
Keeping the shareholders happy seems to be a more important
consideration than the combat effectiveness of the airframes being
offered.
Of course ISR assets have always gotten the short shrift when it comes
to survivability. During the Cold War (and even more recently off
Hainan Island), when they met hostile misfortune, it was because of a
miscalculation by one side or the other. Now that they are taking on a
more tactical role, the probability of ISR assets taking fire is
increasing significantly(OP-2E reprise). The role of these aircraft in
achieving combat objectives is also increasing. Given the fact that
only very limited numbers of these aircraft will be procured, and
increasingly very limited numbers of skilled people will be available
to man them, keeping these missions on vulnerable airframes is going
to prove a tragically false economy one day.
Its a bit of a tangential example, but the loss of the Atlantic
Conveyor and the subsequent severe impact to the Brit's operational
plan is one such case of using a vulnerable civil platform in a
hostile environment that turned out very badly.


I will point out the Lexington is not an unbiased source. They are,
frankly, paid marketeers. (I know, I've been in a similar business myself,
and our group did some business with Lexington.)
So do you think Lexington is in the employ of Northrop Grumman?

s.p.i. wrote:
"Thomas Schoene" wrote

I will point out the Lexington is not an unbiased source. They are,
frankly, paid marketeers. (I know, I've been in a similar business
myself, and our group did some business with Lexington.)

So do you think Lexington is in the employ of Northrop Grumman?

I think it's possible. Or more precisely, I think NG gives them money and
expects to see favorable comments.

--
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)

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message hlink.net...
s.p.i. wrote:
"Thomas Schoene" wrote

I will point out the Lexington is not an unbiased source. They are,
frankly, paid marketeers. (I know, I've been in a similar business
myself, and our group did some business with Lexington.)

So do you think Lexington is in the employ of Northrop Grumman?

I think it's possible. Or more precisely, I think NG gives them money and
expects to see favorable comments.

So, are you-or your employer-somehow affiliated with Boeing? You seem
to favor their MMA offering. BTW I have worked for Boeing,
Gulfstream, LM, and Embraer customers at various times, so I know a
bit about their offerings.
The bottom line is in order to save costs, folks are turning to these
civil airframes and shoehorning them into roles they are not all that
well suited for.
Reading the little info LM is providing on the Orion-21, I see they
want to make it inot a glass cokpit aircraft as well. Will they also
engineer in the requisite toughness for a survivable electrical
system? Or are too many people of the opinion that since no P-3s have
been lost to hostile fire in 50 years, its not something to worry
about for the next 50? If so, they are setting somebody up for
needless losses somewhere down the road.