John Alger wrote in message . ..

I think the MMA will do just fine. Gets out and back quicker, can stay
on station longer, carries more goodies, better crew comfort (plenty
important on 8-14 hour missions) and has in-flight refueling - all
plusses.


It will do just fine because it will be the only game in town
(assuming BAMS doesn't totally eclipse the manned platform concept at
some point). Actually it will do fine because of BAMS.
There are some real drawbacks to this aircraft at this point though.
It can't live down low and slow for very long,and in a single engine
situation could find itself out of gas before it could get back to
feet dry...Ok, it could refuel while airborne, but how many stray
tankers are about in MPA areas of ops?
Unless something is done to harden the fuel and electrical systems
from otherwise inconsequential damage, this aircraft will be a very
vulnerable asset in the coming years. Companies like AGAT and Novator-
not to mention the Chinese- are already marketing long range SAM and
AAM systems that threaten the heretofore "invulnerable" large military
aircraft that have operated mostly unfettered since the end of WWII.
It will be expensive to back engineer such fixes.
Also don't forget these aircraft, like the rest of the Navy, will be
expected to operate in the historically lethal Littorals much of the
time and not well out at sea. The chances of them taking fire is much
greater than the P-3 had to face through most of its lifetime.
Its RCS is huge, and the chances of avoiding those threats will be
much more problematic. I'd say the proposed LockMart SOF "MACK" would
be a much more suitable platform...But of course this MMA contract was
a very overt political gift to Boeing according to AvLeak.