Boeing 737 Maritime aircraft

"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
At least what has been put out publicly, due to survivabilty
considerations, the MMA won't be doing overland ISR.
I am heartened a little by the recent DHL incident - I always thought that a
MANPAD was 100% fatal.

It was a miracle that the DHL wasn't fatal. They had no hydraulics,
and the after spar was only moments away from failure. If they had
taken a good gust load the outcome would have been much worse. Like I
said before, those guys need never play the Lotto because they used up
every bit of luck they may ever have.
Of note, the second VP-26 loss sounds like it was a spar failure
caused by fire too. Hydrodynamic ram induced fire I'd bet. Better
protection from hydrodynamic ram fires should be a priority for large
aircraft both military and civil...And of course its a bad idea to
expect large aircraft-especially large aircraft designed for civil
use-to survive over hot battlefields, your OEF experience
notwithstanding.
How much of a maintenance headache has the fuel tank foam been Dano?
Backfitting survivability is always problematic and expensive.

MANPADS are not the only threat. There is this capability coming on
the export market:

"Russian guided-weapons builder Novator is continuing to work, albeit
slowly, on an ultralong-range air-to-air missile, with a version on
offer for export to a select customer set.

Designated article 172, the weapon was included on a model of the
Su-35 derivative of the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker, on display during the
Dubai air show. The export version, known as the 172S1, has a 300-km.
(186-mi.) range, compared with 400 km. for the original version
specified by the Russian air force. The missile, which is also
referred to (perhaps erroneously) as the KS-172, is intended to engage
specific high-value targets such as airborne warning and control
aircraft, air-to-ground surveillance and tanker platforms."

In my experience S.P.I .,,,the foam in the tanks was part of the
survivability mod done on the P-3's in the mid--late 80's. It was a
huge failure, it disintegrated and plugged up pumps, filters, etc. It
was a sure maintenance nightmare whenever we had to do any fuel cell
repair, or the daily fuel samples showed pieces of foam floating
around in it. The foam was actually in big removable numbered pieces
that fit together like a jigsaw puzzle for each tank, and had to be
removed and stored in a big portable storage tank. It has been removed
fleet-wide by an AFC in the mid 90's because of these reasons.
OBTW, talking about backfitting survivability, the "Matador"
Infrared jammers were the biggest joke I've seen for the P-3's. Around
the same timeframe (mid-late 80's to the mid 90's), whichever squadron
would deploy to SWA, would be issued about 4 of these systems, along
with chaff/flare pods that were wing rack mounted. We could never get
them to work, tried like hell, found many discrepancies, ordered many
parts. Eventually, we would just deploy with 4 tri-walls (about 10,000
lbs. of junk), airlift it to Misawa or Diego, then just let it sit
there in the tri-walls for 6 months then haul it home! You can tell
which P-3's went through this mod by the welded brackets that were
used to mount the Matadors Transmitter, (about 100 lbs each), just aft
of the main cabin door, and on the opposite side of the fuselage.
The current ALQ-157/ALE-47 system (chaff and flare pods are
mounted in the #2 and #3 beavertails, receiver/transmitters are
mounted on the forward and aft radomes) ) being used now are a huge
increase in capability and reliability.

On 26 Dec 2003 23:46:39 -0800, (s.p.i.)
wrote:

"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
At least what has been put out publicly, due to survivabilty
considerations, the MMA won't be doing overland ISR.
I am heartened a little by the recent DHL incident - I always thought that a
MANPAD was 100% fatal.

It was a miracle that the DHL wasn't fatal. They had no hydraulics,
and the after spar was only moments away from failure. If they had
taken a good gust load the outcome would have been much worse. Like I
said before, those guys need never play the Lotto because they used up
every bit of luck they may ever have.
Of note, the second VP-26 loss sounds like it was a spar failure
caused by fire too. Hydrodynamic ram induced fire I'd bet. Better
protection from hydrodynamic ram fires should be a priority for large
aircraft both military and civil...And of course its a bad idea to
expect large aircraft-especially large aircraft designed for civil
use-to survive over hot battlefields, your OEF experience
notwithstanding.
How much of a maintenance headache has the fuel tank foam been Dano?
Backfitting survivability is always problematic and expensive.

MANPADS are not the only threat. There is this capability coming on
the export market:

"Russian guided-weapons builder Novator is continuing to work, albeit
slowly, on an ultralong-range air-to-air missile, with a version on
offer for export to a select customer set.

Designated article 172, the weapon was included on a model of the
Su-35 derivative of the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker, on display during the
Dubai air show. The export version, known as the 172S1, has a 300-km.
(186-mi.) range, compared with 400 km. for the original version
specified by the Russian air force. The missile, which is also
referred to (perhaps erroneously) as the KS-172, is intended to engage
specific high-value targets such as airborne warning and control
aircraft, air-to-ground surveillance and tanker platforms."

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
om...
"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?

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?

s.p.i. wrote:
"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?

No, I am not. I can't speak for the whole company, of course, but I don't
have any knowledge of any MMA interests. I have done some work tangentially
rrelated to MMA, but nothing that gives mae a financial stak in which
company wins.

When I do have a potential conflict (as has happened when I worked for a
company supporting specific Navy commands) I have tried to either disclose
my interests or refrain from commenting.

You seem
to favor their MMA offering.

No, I don't. As I've said at least once, I'm largely playing devil's
advocate.

I will admit that I tend to be frustrated when people argue that the way
we've always done things is the only possible answer for the future. So I
do tend to favor "different" over "more of the same."

I guess I'm also optimistic that companies don't offer solutions that they
don't sincerely believe will do the job. Perhaps that's naive of me, but
the conter-arguemrnt that cmoanies offer cut-rate products kowing that they
will result in fatalities does not match the character of the people I've
worked with.

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.

You seem to be forgetting that the Orion was a civil airframe (it's
basically an Electra, after all.) Whether a given airframe is survivable
clearly has a lot more to do with detailed design than a simple "military
vs. civilian" distinction.


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?

Glass cockpits are not exactly foreign to combat aircraft. If the
Orion-21's cockpit systems are related to those of the C-130J, I'd have
fairly high confidence in their durability.

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.


I'm not sure that "saving costs" isn't a necessary part of the acquisition
process. In a long-term analysis, perhaps we need to shave airframe costs
to ensure there are enough operational aircraft to cover he eventualities.
It's probably impossible to do a complete risk/cost assessment, but you can
certainly argue that having more MMA airframes might be worth a slightly
higher combat loss rate, if those extra planes provide significant
operational advantages.

If, for example, having more MMAs prevents the loss of a single transport
ship carrying a batttalion of troops and equipment, then you may want to
accept losing a couple more MMAs over their combat life.

That's a cold calculation, and unlikely to appeal to the operators, but it
is something planners need to think about.

--
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)

Well, I think I am getting in way over my head with this thread

I am just going by the dog and pony that Boeing put on for us peasants. IRT
COTS I was referring more to the airframe and powerplants than the
avionics - I'm pretty sure the stuff I operated was not COTS (SS-3)!

BTW, greetings from Wing "V." If you are with Wing "X", say hello to the
AWCM. Feel free to write me in a sidebar...dano


"fudog50" wrote in message
...
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?

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message

No, I don't. As I've said at least once, I'm largely playing devil's
advocate.

Me too. I see problems with both offerings...Maybe it will be BAMS to
The Rescue. I had the interesting perspective of seeing both a
next-gen 737 and a P-3 on approach into two seperate airports in view
at the same time a little bit ago. It put a little reality into these
idle ponderings.

I will admit that I tend to be frustrated when people argue that the way
we've always done things is the only possible answer for the future. So I
do tend to favor "different" over "more of the same."

Me too(I am proud to say I've been Plonked By Fred). The one major
thing I see here as "more of the same" is the lack of thought given to
the potential of these aircraft taking battle damage.


I guess I'm also optimistic that companies don't offer solutions that they
don't sincerely believe will do the job. Perhaps that's naive of me, but
the conter-arguemrnt that cmoanies offer cut-rate products kowing that they
will result in fatalities does not match the character of the people I've
worked with.

Boeing's recent corporate behavior doesn't leave me as optimistic.
They have been overly focused on keeping their shareholders
happy-ethics be damned. In some quarters that has been defended, but
there is a real downside.
I'm not saying there is some Oliver Stone-esque corporate strategy to
kill people for for profit; but I will say that Boeing's main
motivation is to keep their civil transport production lines open. Add
in the motivation of those on the military side to keep costs low so
they can get their babies through Congress, and you have a bad
combination.


You seem to be forgetting that the Orion was a civil airframe (it's
basically an Electra, after all.) Whether a given airframe is survivable
clearly has a lot more to do with detailed design than a simple "military
vs. civilian" distinction.

No, I'm not forgetting. Its my point exactly. The detailed designs of
the Boeings and Embraers are based on the possibility of failure, not
damage. Whereas military designs are required by law to undergo live
fire testing, programs such as the MMA, KC767, ACS, et all are
apparently exempt. Yet its these platforms that are being thurst into
new tactical scenarios where they could well take rounds. They will be
WARplanes and should be reagrded as such.

Glass cockpits are not exactly foreign to combat aircraft. If the
Orion-21's cockpit systems are related to those of the C-130J, I'd have
fairly high confidence in their durability.

I can't speak for the C-130J, but the avionics of the F-18 and F-22
are specifically hardened against potential damage.
From what I've personally seen on the Boeing and Embraer offerings,
one round could put them completely in the dark. None these aircraft
are expected to fly that way-and won't for too long. The COTS aspects
of these flight systems is a major selling point, so its apparent that
nothing is going to be done to harden them.

That's a cold calculation, and unlikely to appeal to the operators, but it
is something planners need to think about.

Absolutely, they need to think about such things, but historically
planners have not given much regard to aircraft vulnerability. For
instance, it was a big problem in Vietnam and thats why these people
came into existence:
http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/mission.htm.
Even now you get the sense that the people in this business don't get
the respect they deserve:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/aircraft/

For tomorrow, we can only afford "just enough" airframes, manned by
"just enough" people. We won't have the luxury of surplus that we have
enjoyed in past conflicts. So we'd better get it right the first time.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/aircraft/6.pdf