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)