Boeing 737 Maritime aircraft

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)

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

Yeah, its a real Hobson's Choice for NAVAIR. Boeing is only worried
about keeping thier production lines open, and not providing the
warfighters an optimized platform. At least the airframes would be
new(even if the design isn't)which is a big plus over the LM offering.

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.

True, but its a big notch out of the pressure tube. Floors and
bulkheads will have to be strengthened and all those angles could well
lead to fatigue issues someday.
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?
As user mentioned, the P-3 went through some surviviability mods. Sure
the P-3 was a civil design initially, but one that was inherently more
robust than a 737NG. Four engines versus 2 is just one issue,
protection of the electrical system from easy kills is going to be
vital on these glass cockpit designs. Installation of fuel tank foam
on the P-3 as an afterthought cost that platform in terms of
maintenance costs and performance. Yet the DHL MANPADS encounter
vividly shows protection from hydrodynamic ram induced fires will be a
must.
With the change to ops in the littorals, the P-3 successor stands a
much better chance at getting shot at during its career.
Because so many of the missions these civil airframes are expected to
perform have never seen fire in anger, it appears that there is a
dangerous lack of consideration for the combat survivability of the
ACS MC2A MMA KC767 etc. I guess the powers that be are too worried
about getting funded with what they have now than worry about what
they -wrongly- view as a nebulous threat. It will bite somebody in the
ass one day-you heard it here first.
Instead of just focusing on keeping their production lines open, the
manufacturers would do well to start pioneering vulenrability
improvements. Since DHL it can even be seen as a commercially smart
thing to do.


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.

Since the 737 NG was designed for ETOPS, I'll bet money the
barnstorming has an ETOPS engine out flavor to it. The ability to
maneuver down low with adequate endurance is a big question I have.
The mission is in transition with BAMS however. If it evolves into a
situation where the MMA is mostly a control platfrom for UAVs then the
73 would make the most sense.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out.