737 MMA

Mike- If they're anything like those we had on the ship they'll suck - or
they'll
be the same movie for five hops in a row. BRBR

Good ole days, when the moovie was the big reel type, lights out, at 2100,
after last event manned up.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

John Alger wrote in message . ..

I think the MMA will do just fine. Gets out and back quicker, can stay
on station longer, carries more goodies, better crew comfort (plenty
important on 8-14 hour missions) and has in-flight refueling - all
plusses.


It will do just fine because it will be the only game in town
(assuming BAMS doesn't totally eclipse the manned platform concept at
some point). Actually it will do fine because of BAMS.
There are some real drawbacks to this aircraft at this point though.
It can't live down low and slow for very long,and in a single engine
situation could find itself out of gas before it could get back to
feet dry...Ok, it could refuel while airborne, but how many stray
tankers are about in MPA areas of ops?
Unless something is done to harden the fuel and electrical systems
from otherwise inconsequential damage, this aircraft will be a very
vulnerable asset in the coming years. Companies like AGAT and Novator-
not to mention the Chinese- are already marketing long range SAM and
AAM systems that threaten the heretofore "invulnerable" large military
aircraft that have operated mostly unfettered since the end of WWII.
It will be expensive to back engineer such fixes.
Also don't forget these aircraft, like the rest of the Navy, will be
expected to operate in the historically lethal Littorals much of the
time and not well out at sea. The chances of them taking fire is much
greater than the P-3 had to face through most of its lifetime.
Its RCS is huge, and the chances of avoiding those threats will be
much more problematic. I'd say the proposed LockMart SOF "MACK" would
be a much more suitable platform...But of course this MMA contract was
a very overt political gift to Boeing according to AvLeak.

I was talking to a guy at work who is in the reservr P-3 community and has
experience FLYING the MMA he said it is not suitable at low altitude the whole
package is not to standards and is wondering how combat damage resistamt it
will be made.
Sparky
Question for the naval aviators: How is the new 737 MMA going to perform as
the
P-3s replacement? I know it's bigger, carries more "stuff" and whatnot, but
from what I know of jet engines (even high-bypass fans), won't it be very
fuel
INefficient in the same regime as the P-3 prowls? Cruising along at 1000' or
so
and around 200 KIAS? Or is the MMA going to be punching out sonobuoys from a
much higher altitude and at a much higher speed?

Is this aircraft the real answer or is it more taxpayer money into the gaping
maw of the military-industrial copmplex?

Elmshoot wrote:
I was talking to a guy at work who is in the reservr P-3 community and has
experience FLYING the MMA he said it is not suitable at low altitude the whole
package is not to standards and is wondering how combat damage resistamt it
will be made.
Sparky

How quickly can you get a handheld SAM through the hatch of a Chinese sub and
ready to fire?

-HJC

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

Pechs,

Combat damage? From what?

The microwave breaking loose and hitting an aircrew on the fott?

No. From further engagements with PLAAF F-8s.

But with combat hardening of the airframe, we could deploy VPF outfits. g

--
Mike Kanze

"They had a profile of John Kerry on the news and they said his first wife
was worth around $300 million and his second wife, his current wife, is
worth around $700 million. His intern (with whom he supposedly had an
affair) was worth several more million. So when John Kerry says he's going
after the wealthy in this country, he's not just talking. He's doing it!"

- Jay Leno


"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

(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.

(Elmshoot) wrote in message ...
I was talking to a guy at work who is in the reservr P-3 community and has
experience FLYING the MMA he said it is not suitable at low altitude the whole
package is not to standards and is wondering how combat damage resistamt it
will be made.
As one who is up close and personal with the 737 next gens every day
(along with 767's as well), I can tell you that these aircraft are
VERY vulnerable to any little bit of damage. They were designed for
component FAILURE and will not be tolerant at all to any rounds or
shrapnel thrown their way.
At a minimum the MMA *should* get ballistic protection to the E&E bay
and some of the vital cable runs...Glass cockpit aircraft won't fly
long without electrical power...And also some advanced protection
against hydrodynamic ram.

Mike- No. From further engagements with PLAAF F-8s. BRBR

yep, I'll take a P-3 weenie in a fight with the chinese 'fighter pilots'
anyday.

When the balloon goes up with China, it's going to be another "Marianna's
'spicey turkey with almonds' shoot"-
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

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