737 MMA

(Pechs1) wrote in message ...
elmshoot- is wondering how combat damage resistamt it
will be made. BRBR


Combat damage? From what?

The microwave breaking loose and hitting an aircrew on the fott?
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

A few things Pechs. The MMA will be spending a whole lot more time in
the Littorals than MPA's of old. That will put them in near proximity
to a whole host of threats. Als, there is a whole new generation of
threats specifically targing the aircraft that have historically
remained on the perepheries of the battlespace. Apparently some of our
potential adversaries see the center of gravity these aircraft
represent in our new found net-centric ways of war. It appears they
wish to exploit this vulnerability too. Check out some of these links:

http://in.rediff.com/news/2003/oct/21china.htm
There were reports that Pakistan may soon acquire Chinese-made 'AWACS
killer' to counter Phalcons.
According to the reports, Islamabad was eying Chinese-built FT-2000
surface-to-air missile, commonly known as 'AWACS killer'.

http://www.china-defense.com/aviatio...af-ops-21.html
China has also developed the FT-2000 mobile SAM. This SAM is based on
the S-300 and is designed to engage radiating aircraft, such as
airborne jammers and airborne warning and control system (AWACS)
aircraft. China first tested the FT-2000 in September 1998, then
conducted the first field trials during a series of exercises in 1999.


http://www.vor.ru/science/madeinrus8_eng.html
Russia's latest S-400 "Triumph" air defence system is capable of
hitting AWACS early warning planes.
S-400 is unique for fighting enemy planes. It is designed to hit both
present-day and future means for air attack: tactical and strategic
aircraft, cruise missiles of the "Tomahawk" type and other missiles at
a distance of 400 kilometers.

http://www.ainonline.com/Publication...1agatpg85.html
If used on a long-range missile airframe, the ARGS-PD could give an
opposing air force the ability to take out strategic targets at
distances outside of the normal interception envelopes of U.S. or
other NATO fighters. Boeing E-3 AWACS or E-8 JSTARS aircraft–platforms
that U.S. forces depend heavily upon in time of conflict–would be
vulnerable as never before.

http://www.stormpages.com/jetfight/wwwboard/2359.html
JANE'S MISSILES AND ROCKETS - MARCH 01, 2004
Novator offers a redesigned KS-172S-1 long-range AAM
Piotr Butowski

Sukhoi has displayed a model of the Su-35 multirole fighter carrying
under its wings two KS-172S-1 ultra-long range air-to-air missiles,
writes Piotr Butowski. The weapon is an export variant of a missile
originally offered to the Russian Air Force by the Novator Company of
Yekaterinburg.
Maximum range of the KS-172S-1 export variant is 300km; the version
proposed for Russian air forces is believed to have a range of 400km.
The missile will be used against air targets flying at altitudes from
3m to 30km with speeds up to 4,000km/h and manoeuvring at up to 12g.
Typical targets could include all types of aircraft (including AWACS
or J-STARS platforms, tankers, reconnaissance and electronic-warfare
aircraft), cruise missiles, as well as long and medium-range
anti-aircraft missiles which pose a threat to the KS-172-armed
fighter.

also- Als, there is a whole new generation of
threats specifically targing the aircraft that have historically
remained on the perepheries of the battlespace. BRBR

AWACS and MPA are not the same thing. An AWACS loitering at 30,000 feet and a
MPA wandering around in the weeds are not the same.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

(Pechs1) wrote in message ...
also- Als, there is a whole new generation of
threats specifically targing the aircraft that have historically
remained on the perepheries of the battlespace. BRBR

AWACS and MPA are not the same thing. An AWACS loitering at 30,000 feet and a
MPA wandering around in the weeds are not the same.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

By all accounts the MMA won't be spending nearly the same amount of
time down in the weeds. I will opine this 737 variant will spend very
littel time below FL210.
Indeed Mr. Alger had this to say about his P-3 experience:
"Most of the sonobouys we jettisoned during my P-3 days (all reserve
time: VP-94) were sent out at altitudes above 10,000' - and a majority
of those above 20K. We spent very little of our time below 10K...."

The MPA days characterized by bear hunts in blue water are done. The
MMA will be spending its time in conditions more like those of Market
Time-and thats where the P-3 suffered its only combat losses. Also,
the MMA will utilized much more in a C4I role and as such will be more
like E-3s instead of P-3s...

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/sea...2F06214wna.xml

"However, supporters contend that the Navy's need is for larger,
sophisticated aircraft with the room to increase the crew size,
payload and power. They could then serve as airborne nodes to analyze
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance data direct from the
battlefield without the time-consuming and communications-clogging
option of sending it to facilities in the U.S."