737 MMA

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."