Boeing 737 Maritime aircraft

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message ink.net...
s.p.i. wrote:
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
nk.net...
s.p.i. wrote:
(Darrell A. Larose) wrote in message
...
Global Security has a good illustration of the 737 MMA at:



http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../mma-boeing.jp
g

or if this wraps try:

http://tinyurl.com/yveo

Boeing needs to update their info(is the old info a sign of the
company's disarray?).

That's not a Boeing website, you know.
True, but they still have this out there...
http://www.boeing.com/ids/allsystems...3/story09.html


Well, yes. But it's a periodical newsletter (though it doesn't have a date
on it). What shoud they dio, rewrite all their old press releases and
newsletters every time a program changes? That would sort of undermine the
value of these as historical records, wouldn't it? (Not to mention eating
up huge amounts of resources.)

Well, I'm certainly on record for maintaining historical posterity...
However, this is as much about commercial marketing for commercial
purposes (selling 737 NGs)so I'm pretty surprised they haven't touted
thier offering more.
For a view on the cynical nature of these companies'(one of them at
least) aircraft offerings for a current project, check this out:
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/defense/031211.asp

s.p.i. wrote:

Well, I'm certainly on record for maintaining historical posterity...
However, this is as much about commercial marketing for commercial
purposes (selling 737 NGs)so I'm pretty surprised they haven't touted
thier offering more.

I think the Boeing plan is to concentrate more on swaying the actual
users -- hence the barnstorming trips. IMO, this is probably a better (or
at least more palatable) way to spend their marketing money.

For a view on the cynical nature of these companies'(one of them at
least) aircraft offerings for a current project, check this out:
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/defense/031211.asp

I'm not quite sure what lesson is to be drawn here. Cost vs performance is a
perfectly valid issue. As long as they fulfil the threshold requirements,
there's always a trade space where aircraft performance can be balanced
against cost.

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.)

--
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:

Well, I'm certainly on record for maintaining historical posterity...
However, this is as much about commercial marketing for commercial
purposes (selling 737 NGs)so I'm pretty surprised they haven't touted
thier offering more.

I think the Boeing plan is to concentrate more on swaying the actual
users -- hence the barnstorming trips. IMO, this is probably a better (or
at least more palatable) way to spend their marketing money.

For a view on the cynical nature of these companies'(one of them at
least) aircraft offerings for a current project, check this out:
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/defense/031211.asp

I'm not quite sure what lesson is to be drawn here. Cost vs performance is a
perfectly valid issue. As long as they fulfil the threshold requirements,
there's always a trade space where aircraft performance can be balanced
against cost.
The lesson is, when cost becomes the overarching factor in weapons
system procurement, bad things will eventually happen.
Keeping the shareholders happy seems to be a more important
consideration than the combat effectiveness of the airframes being
offered.
Of course ISR assets have always gotten the short shrift when it comes
to survivability. During the Cold War (and even more recently off
Hainan Island), when they met hostile misfortune, it was because of a
miscalculation by one side or the other. Now that they are taking on a
more tactical role, the probability of ISR assets taking fire is
increasing significantly(OP-2E reprise). The role of these aircraft in
achieving combat objectives is also increasing. Given the fact that
only very limited numbers of these aircraft will be procured, and
increasingly very limited numbers of skilled people will be available
to man them, keeping these missions on vulnerable airframes is going
to prove a tragically false economy one day.
Its a bit of a tangential example, but the loss of the Atlantic
Conveyor and the subsequent severe impact to the Brit's operational
plan is one such case of using a vulnerable civil platform in a
hostile environment that turned out very badly.


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?

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.

--
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

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.

"...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.

"dano" wrote in message ...
"...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


mea culpa...You know, when I sent that last post there was a little
nagging feeling that I should've the Market Time histories. May those
souls rest in peace.

However, this simply buttresses my case. Where was this P-3-and also
the only other P-3 combat casualty-lost? In a Littoral conflict. Where
is the MMA expected to spend much of its service life...?

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)

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message

No, I don't. As I've said at least once, I'm largely playing devil's
advocate.

Me too. I see problems with both offerings...Maybe it will be BAMS to
The Rescue. I had the interesting perspective of seeing both a
next-gen 737 and a P-3 on approach into two seperate airports in view
at the same time a little bit ago. It put a little reality into these
idle ponderings.

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."

Me too(I am proud to say I've been Plonked By Fred). The one major
thing I see here as "more of the same" is the lack of thought given to
the potential of these aircraft taking battle damage.


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.

Boeing's recent corporate behavior doesn't leave me as optimistic.
They have been overly focused on keeping their shareholders
happy-ethics be damned. In some quarters that has been defended, but
there is a real downside.
I'm not saying there is some Oliver Stone-esque corporate strategy to
kill people for for profit; but I will say that Boeing's main
motivation is to keep their civil transport production lines open. Add
in the motivation of those on the military side to keep costs low so
they can get their babies through Congress, and you have a bad
combination.


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.

No, I'm not forgetting. Its my point exactly. The detailed designs of
the Boeings and Embraers are based on the possibility of failure, not
damage. Whereas military designs are required by law to undergo live
fire testing, programs such as the MMA, KC767, ACS, et all are
apparently exempt. Yet its these platforms that are being thurst into
new tactical scenarios where they could well take rounds. They will be
WARplanes and should be reagrded as such.

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.

I can't speak for the C-130J, but the avionics of the F-18 and F-22
are specifically hardened against potential damage.
From what I've personally seen on the Boeing and Embraer offerings,
one round could put them completely in the dark. None these aircraft
are expected to fly that way-and won't for too long. The COTS aspects
of these flight systems is a major selling point, so its apparent that
nothing is going to be done to harden them.

That's a cold calculation, and unlikely to appeal to the operators, but it
is something planners need to think about.

Absolutely, they need to think about such things, but historically
planners have not given much regard to aircraft vulnerability. For
instance, it was a big problem in Vietnam and thats why these people
came into existence:
http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/mission.htm.
Even now you get the sense that the people in this business don't get
the respect they deserve:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/aircraft/

For tomorrow, we can only afford "just enough" airframes, manned by
"just enough" people. We won't have the luxury of surplus that we have
enjoyed in past conflicts. So we'd better get it right the first time.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/aircraft/6.pdf