Boeing 737 Maritime aircraft

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message news:KttBb.7541
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.
So I see that Boeing has old info on their website...Sorry about that
Thom.
http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/jun_03_28.php
Its gonna take some engineering to come up with that bomb bay. Also
what about stores separation from the wings? Of course my favorite:
combat vulnerability improvements?
Sure it will have an altitude and transit/sprint speed advantage, but
how will it behave down low? What will ice drag to fuel consumption
below FL100? Low level characteristics seems to be a major issue with
user.

"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.
So I see that Boeing has old info on their website...Sorry about that
Thom.
http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/jun_03_28.php
Its gonna take some engineering to come up with that bomb bay. Also
what about stores separation from the wings? Of course my favorite:
combat vulnerability improvements?
Sure it will have an altitude and transit/sprint speed advantage, but
how will it behave down low? What will ice drag to fuel consumption
below FL100? Low level characteristics seems to be a major issue with
user.

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

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.

So I see that Boeing has old info on their website...Sorry about that
Thom.
http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/jun_03_28.php
Its gonna take some engineering to come up with that bomb bay. Also
what about stores separation from the wings? Of course my favorite:
combat vulnerability improvements?
Sure it will have an altitude and transit/sprint speed advantage, but
how will it behave down low? What will ice drag to fuel consumption
below FL100? Low level characteristics seems to be a major issue with
user.

s.p.i. wrote:
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
news:KttBb.7541 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.
One quibble Thomas. The Boeing offering is the 737-700 IGW.
http://www.boeing.com/ids/allsystems...3/story09.html

Old news.

http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/jun_03_28.php

"Boeing is refining its MMA proposal for a design based on the Boeing 737
airliner, but has upgraded its entry from the 737-700 design--which would
have the wings of the 737-800--to a 737-800 aircraft fitted with 737-900
wings."


--
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)

Right SPI, thanks. Low level characteristics is a big part for MAD
prosecutions, SAR, SSC, etc..Not to mention response time of the CFM's
vs. Props and of course the corrosion concerns.

On 11 Dec 2003 01:01:11 -0800, (s.p.i.)
wrote:

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

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.

So I see that Boeing has old info on their website...Sorry about that
Thom.
http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/jun_03_28.php
Its gonna take some engineering to come up with that bomb bay. Also
what about stores separation from the wings? Of course my favorite:
combat vulnerability improvements?
Sure it will have an altitude and transit/sprint speed advantage, but
how will it behave down low? What will ice drag to fuel consumption
below FL100? Low level characteristics seems to be a major issue with
user.

user ) writes:
Where were the CP-140 Aurora's you guys fly made?

They were the last P-3 airframes I believe of of Lockheeds production

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

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...mma-boeing.jpg

or if this wraps try:

http://tinyurl.com/yveo

Dave et al,

THe allocation of missions to the MMA is different than the old P-3. MMA
is viewed as part of a set of aircraft including the Broad Area Maritime
Surveillanvce UAV and an EP-3 replacement. WHat is called persitent ISR
(Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance) is allocated to the BAMS
UAV. The MMA concentrates on attack missions (ASW, ASUW) and
antisubmarine warfare.

Boeing has been trying to sell the 737 in some guise as an ASW platform
since the 80's. Much of the P-3 mission was flown relatively low and
slow and many thought it could not get down in the weeds like a P-3.
That has abated somewhat and now flying a 737 for the Navy as MMA looks
like an airline pilot career path.

Both BAMS and MMA are likely to be competed and selected this year

Bob

"Darrell A. Larose" wrote:
| user ) writes:
| Where were the CP-140 Aurora's you guys fly made?
|
| They were the last P-3 airframes I believe of of Lockheeds production

The South Koreans bought P-3's off a production line in Marietta,
Georgia in the 1990's.

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

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.

So I see that Boeing has old info on their website...Sorry about that
Thom.

What follows is mostly playing Devil's advocate. I'm of very mixed minds on
MMA and don't entirely care for either of the remaining options.

In a perfect world, we'd be looking at a four-engine purpose-built MMA.
Maybe something liek the Jpanese P-X (this link is strictly speculative; it
looks like a P-3 fuselage with swpt wings and jets.)

http://www.strange-mecha.com/jsdf/jmsdf/JMSDF02.htm#P-X

http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/jun_03_28.php
Its gonna take some engineering to come up with that bomb bay.

Well, it does miss the wing structures, so it's not that hard. Fortunately,
the weights carried are fairly small, so the 737 MMA doens't have to worry
too much about CG shifts.

Also
what about stores separation from the wings?

I'm not sure why this woudl be any harder than for any other plane. Of
course you have to do the clearance trials, but don;t see anything
inherent;y problematic about the 737 that a good strong ejector won't fix.
It's not like the MMA has to worry about weapon release in extreme attitudes
like a fighter might.


Of course my favorite:
combat vulnerability improvements?

A concern, of course. But how much survivability does the P-3 itself have?
It's stilll fundamentally an airliner airframe (a 1950s one at that). Basic
things like fuel tank self-sealing and inerting seem obvious, but is any MPA
going to survive well against a determined attack?

Sure it will have an altitude and transit/sprint speed advantage, but
how will it behave down low? What will ice drag to fuel consumption
below FL100? Low level characteristics seems to be a major issue with
user.

Boeing seems to recognize this. They've been barnstorming one of their
unmodified 737s, letting VP squadron-level folks fly with them and really
wringing out the airframe. One of the things I believe they are
demonstrating is an engine-out climb from low altitude. If it can in fact
climb on one engine at operational weights, that's a pretty good sign.

While there is no doubt a lot of PR spin in the descriptions of these
flights, they certainly give the impression that the plane is agile enough
and has sufficient power reserves to function down low if it needs to. Not
as good as the P-3, and they admit that, but the tradeoff for speed and max
alt is not a simple one.

http://www.stockworld.de/msg/576863.html
http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seatt...8/daily29.html

and one that predates the most recent round of demos (back when Nimrod was
still an option).

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...boeing13.shtml

--
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)