![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"...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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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...? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Predicting the future...Who'd a thought this little nugget sensor operator
would have gone from chasing Soviet subs in the North Atlantic to flying ISR mission over Afghanistan - in less than 20 years ![]() I am heartened a little by the recent DHL incident - I always thought that a MANPAD was 100% fatal. Dano "s.p.i." wrote in message om... "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...? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"dano" wrote in message ...
Predicting the future...Who'd a thought this little nugget sensor operator would have gone from chasing Soviet subs in the North Atlantic to flying ISR mission over Afghanistan - in less than 20 years ![]() I am heartened a little by the recent DHL incident - I always thought that a MANPAD was 100% fatal. Dano So Dano, which is your choice? The Boeing 73 variant or the LM Orion 21? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I am truly torn...I have 5800+ hours in Lockheed's lowest MPA bid, but I
think the case for a 737 frame is also strong. Since I'm a sensor operator, I am more interested in what's in the tube. I would imagine with a larger tube the 737 would be more versitile and the logistics might be easier (COTS A&P) but there would have to be some new infrastructure (i.e. GSE, hangars, etc). In the end, it will all come down to which pile has the smaller number of beans. Dano "s.p.i." wrote in message om... "dano" wrote in message ... Predicting the future...Who'd a thought this little nugget sensor operator would have gone from chasing Soviet subs in the North Atlantic to flying ISR mission over Afghanistan - in less than 20 years ![]() I am heartened a little by the recent DHL incident - I always thought that a MANPAD was 100% fatal. Dano So Dano, which is your choice? The Boeing 73 variant or the LM Orion 21? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"dano" wrote in message ...
Predicting the future...Who'd a thought this little nugget sensor operator would have gone from chasing Soviet subs in the North Atlantic to flying ISR mission over Afghanistan - in less than 20 years ![]() At least what has been put out publicly, due to survivabilty considerations, the MMA won't be doing overland ISR. I am heartened a little by the recent DHL incident - I always thought that a MANPAD was 100% fatal. It was a miracle that the DHL wasn't fatal. They had no hydraulics, and the after spar was only moments away from failure. If they had taken a good gust load the outcome would have been much worse. Like I said before, those guys need never play the Lotto because they used up every bit of luck they may ever have. Of note, the second VP-26 loss sounds like it was a spar failure caused by fire too. Hydrodynamic ram induced fire I'd bet. Better protection from hydrodynamic ram fires should be a priority for large aircraft both military and civil...And of course its a bad idea to expect large aircraft-especially large aircraft designed for civil use-to survive over hot battlefields, your OEF experience notwithstanding. How much of a maintenance headache has the fuel tank foam been Dano? Backfitting survivability is always problematic and expensive. MANPADS are not the only threat. There is this capability coming on the export market: "Russian guided-weapons builder Novator is continuing to work, albeit slowly, on an ultralong-range air-to-air missile, with a version on offer for export to a select customer set. Designated article 172, the weapon was included on a model of the Su-35 derivative of the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker, on display during the Dubai air show. The export version, known as the 172S1, has a 300-km. (186-mi.) range, compared with 400 km. for the original version specified by the Russian air force. The missile, which is also referred to (perhaps erroneously) as the KS-172, is intended to engage specific high-value targets such as airborne warning and control aircraft, air-to-ground surveillance and tanker platforms." |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 40 | October 3rd 08 03:13 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 1st 04 02:31 PM |
Boeing Boondoggle | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 77 | September 15th 04 02:39 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | September 2nd 04 05:15 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | April 5th 04 03:04 PM |