"...since no P-3s have been lost to hostile fire in 50 years..."

I wonder where you got your information from, try
http://www.vpnavy.com/vp26_mishap.html , second entry from bottom. Also,
see http://www.beernabeer.com/First.htm

Cheers,

Dano, VP-26 alumni 83-89




"s.p.i." wrote in message
om...
"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.