A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Boeing 737 Maritime aircraft



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 27th 03, 07:25 AM
dano
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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...?



  #2  
Old December 27th 03, 06:50 AM
s.p.i.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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?
  #3  
Old December 29th 03, 04:39 AM
dano
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?



  #4  
Old December 29th 03, 05:26 AM
fudog50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

COTS is the worst thing ever thought up, from a
maintenance/logistics standpoint. It all boils down to "pay me now, or
pay me later". COTS works well from an operational standpoint if it
can be integrated properly, but then never gets supported from a
maintenance training standpoint. Also, the TAT of COTS is so high, we
end up robbing birds at home to support deployed mission assetts, due
to inadequate sparing of COTS. #1 complaint and priority of CPWP-10 is
"inadequate support and high TAT of COTS". Of course the P-3 AW's and
EP-3 8284's and EWOPS don't see this, all they care about is if their
stuff works or not, as it should be. It really scares me that the push
for COTS and O to D maintenance is so short sighted. I believe it is
much better to maintain the status quo and make military
aviation/avionics self supportive and not rely so much on contract and
depot (civilian) support.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:39:16 -1000, "dano"
wrote:

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
. com...
"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?



  #5  
Old December 30th 03, 04:59 AM
dano
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well, I think I am getting in way over my head with this thread

I am just going by the dog and pony that Boeing put on for us peasants. IRT
COTS I was referring more to the airframe and powerplants than the
avionics - I'm pretty sure the stuff I operated was not COTS (SS-3)!

BTW, greetings from Wing "V." If you are with Wing "X", say hello to the
AWCM. Feel free to write me in a sidebar...dano


"fudog50" wrote in message
...
COTS is the worst thing ever thought up, from a
maintenance/logistics standpoint. It all boils down to "pay me now, or
pay me later". COTS works well from an operational standpoint if it
can be integrated properly, but then never gets supported from a
maintenance training standpoint. Also, the TAT of COTS is so high, we
end up robbing birds at home to support deployed mission assetts, due
to inadequate sparing of COTS. #1 complaint and priority of CPWP-10 is
"inadequate support and high TAT of COTS". Of course the P-3 AW's and
EP-3 8284's and EWOPS don't see this, all they care about is if their
stuff works or not, as it should be. It really scares me that the push
for COTS and O to D maintenance is so short sighted. I believe it is
much better to maintain the status quo and make military
aviation/avionics self supportive and not rely so much on contract and
depot (civilian) support.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:39:16 -1000, "dano"
wrote:

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
. com...
"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?




  #6  
Old December 27th 03, 07:46 AM
s.p.i.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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."
  #7  
Old December 27th 03, 06:13 PM
fudog50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In my experience S.P.I .,,,the foam in the tanks was part of the
survivability mod done on the P-3's in the mid--late 80's. It was a
huge failure, it disintegrated and plugged up pumps, filters, etc. It
was a sure maintenance nightmare whenever we had to do any fuel cell
repair, or the daily fuel samples showed pieces of foam floating
around in it. The foam was actually in big removable numbered pieces
that fit together like a jigsaw puzzle for each tank, and had to be
removed and stored in a big portable storage tank. It has been removed
fleet-wide by an AFC in the mid 90's because of these reasons.
OBTW, talking about backfitting survivability, the "Matador"
Infrared jammers were the biggest joke I've seen for the P-3's. Around
the same timeframe (mid-late 80's to the mid 90's), whichever squadron
would deploy to SWA, would be issued about 4 of these systems, along
with chaff/flare pods that were wing rack mounted. We could never get
them to work, tried like hell, found many discrepancies, ordered many
parts. Eventually, we would just deploy with 4 tri-walls (about 10,000
lbs. of junk), airlift it to Misawa or Diego, then just let it sit
there in the tri-walls for 6 months then haul it home! You can tell
which P-3's went through this mod by the welded brackets that were
used to mount the Matadors Transmitter, (about 100 lbs each), just aft
of the main cabin door, and on the opposite side of the fuselage.
The current ALQ-157/ALE-47 system (chaff and flare pods are
mounted in the #2 and #3 beavertails, receiver/transmitters are
mounted on the forward and aft radomes) ) being used now are a huge
increase in capability and reliability.

On 26 Dec 2003 23:46:39 -0800, (s.p.i.)
wrote:

"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."


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.