Boeing 737 Maritime aircraft

Andrew Toppan wrote:

(3) Finally, there's the question of *which* aircraft will fill the
MMA role. The 737 is *one* of several proposals. If you don't like
the 737, pick one of the others.

Actually, there is only one remaining alternative, after the last
downselect. Lockheed Martin's Orion-21 is pretty much exactly what these
folks say they want -- a rewinged P-3C AIP with some newer avionics and
revised wing stations.

The debate here is probably going to be speed vs cost. The P-3 rewing has
to be the cheap option (they're even recycling the current engines). OTOH,
the P-3 is slow, and has been handicappd by this in some recent operations.
And the last couple fo P-3 life extensions have run into unexpected airframe
issues, so new construction might be desirable.



--
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)

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:16:48 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:

And the last couple fo P-3 life extensions have run into unexpected airframe
issues, so new construction might be desirable.

I have a hard time seeing a life extension as being practical, considering the
Navy is cutting the active P-3 force in half, and reducing the deployment
cycle of the remainder, over fatigue issues.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message link.net...
JD wrote:
I was checking out the new Naval Proceedings (I'm a new subscriber)
and saw an advertisement for the 737 as a maritime patrol aircraft
complete with hard points and weapons. It looks pretty cool, but I
was surprised.
Does anyone have it in their present inventory or is it merely a
proposal to replace the aging P-3?

It's one of two candiates for the Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft. The
other, from Lock-Mart, is yet another P-3 rebuild called Orion-21.

The 737 MMA is based on the 737-800 but has a bunch of modifications,
including a -900's wings, heavier gear, and a weapon bay forward of the wing
carry-through.

Indonesia uses (or at elats used to use) three older 737-200s for maritime
surface patrol, with side-looking radar and a camera (plus maybe some SIGINT
gear). Obviously MA is more elaborate.
More Faux Warbird Mania. At least the Navy is showing the good sense
to not expect the MMA to operate over hot battlefields like the ACS
and MC2A are expected to...(AWST 10/13/03)
"Navy officials also are refocusing the aircraft's role, after the P-3
community in recent years watched its mission migrate from
anti-submarine warfare to overland targeting. MMA's core role will be
anti-submarine warfare, stresses Rear Adm. Mark P. Fitzgerald, the
service's air warfare director. Overland targeting will be taken up by
UAVs, either a low-flying tactical system or the high-flying Broad
Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) system the service hopes to buy
soon. Although special operations forces have indicated they'd much
rather work with a P-3-type aircraft than an unmanned system,
Fitzgerald stressed that overland targeting "is not a core area" for
the system."

I really wonder what kind of climb/endurance performance the 737 MMA
would have on 1 engine climbing off the deck as depicted and at the
outer stretches of its mission radius with those doors stuck open?
Also those low slung CFMs would be a limiting factor at any field
where FOD would be problem...something that could happen in wartime at
unimproved or damaged fields.
The next time you are at an airport take a good look into the intakes
on some of the 73s at the gates and notice how many have dings blended
out of the fan blades

Good points SPI,
The quote you posted about core areas was very relevant and added to
the arguement against the 737 MMA too. I take from that quote that
there is a lot of skepticism and "hope" for what the envisioned Navy
airborne surveillance mission will be. The arguement for 737 MMA and
the cost involved just isn't convincing enough to a lot of us. I'd
like to see in print the opinions of the warfighters on this issue,
not just the PMA and industry opinions, any idea where I could look?
(I'll start with AWST)

On 10 Dec 2003 01:07:42 -0800, (s.p.i.)
wrote:

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message link.net...
JD wrote:
I was checking out the new Naval Proceedings (I'm a new subscriber)
and saw an advertisement for the 737 as a maritime patrol aircraft
complete with hard points and weapons. It looks pretty cool, but I
was surprised.
Does anyone have it in their present inventory or is it merely a
proposal to replace the aging P-3?

It's one of two candiates for the Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft. The
other, from Lock-Mart, is yet another P-3 rebuild called Orion-21.

The 737 MMA is based on the 737-800 but has a bunch of modifications,
including a -900's wings, heavier gear, and a weapon bay forward of the wing
carry-through.

Indonesia uses (or at elats used to use) three older 737-200s for maritime
surface patrol, with side-looking radar and a camera (plus maybe some SIGINT
gear). Obviously MA is more elaborate.
More Faux Warbird Mania. At least the Navy is showing the good sense
to not expect the MMA to operate over hot battlefields like the ACS
and MC2A are expected to...(AWST 10/13/03)
"Navy officials also are refocusing the aircraft's role, after the P-3
community in recent years watched its mission migrate from
anti-submarine warfare to overland targeting. MMA's core role will be
anti-submarine warfare, stresses Rear Adm. Mark P. Fitzgerald, the
service's air warfare director. Overland targeting will be taken up by
UAVs, either a low-flying tactical system or the high-flying Broad
Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) system the service hopes to buy
soon. Although special operations forces have indicated they'd much
rather work with a P-3-type aircraft than an unmanned system,
Fitzgerald stressed that overland targeting "is not a core area" for
the system."

I really wonder what kind of climb/endurance performance the 737 MMA
would have on 1 engine climbing off the deck as depicted and at the
outer stretches of its mission radius with those doors stuck open?
Also those low slung CFMs would be a limiting factor at any field
where FOD would be problem...something that could happen in wartime at
unimproved or damaged fields.
The next time you are at an airport take a good look into the intakes
on some of the 73s at the gates and notice how many have dings blended
out of the fan blades

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:02:25 GMT, user wrote:

airborne surveillance mission will be. The arguement for 737 MMA and
the cost involved just isn't convincing enough to a lot of us. I'd

So what is your proposed alternative?

Keep flying the P-3s forever, even when they start falling apart?

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

Andrew Toppan ) writes:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:02:25 GMT, user wrote:

airborne surveillance mission will be. The arguement for 737 MMA and
the cost involved just isn't convincing enough to a lot of us. I'd

So what is your proposed alternative?

Keep flying the P-3s forever, even when they start falling apart?

That's what we do up here in Canada...

Again Andy my friend, please reread the post from yesterday. I believe
an updated version of the P-7 LRAACA or the P-4 that were well into
design stages in the 80's are perfect alternatives in my opinion.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:52:51 -0500, Andrew Toppan
wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:02:25 GMT, user wrote:

airborne surveillance mission will be. The arguement for 737 MMA and
the cost involved just isn't convincing enough to a lot of us. I'd

So what is your proposed alternative?

Keep flying the P-3s forever, even when they start falling apart?

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message news:KttBb.7541 It's one of two candiates for the Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft. The
other, from Lock-Mart, is yet another P-3 rebuild called Orion-21.

The 737 MMA is based on the 737-800 but has a bunch of modifications,
including a -900's wings, heavier gear, and a weapon bay forward of the wing
carry-through.
One quibble Thomas. The Boeing offering is the 737-700 IGW.
http://www.boeing.com/ids/allsystems...3/story09.html

s.p.i. wrote:
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
news:KttBb.7541 It's one of two candiates for the Multi-Mission
Maritime Aircraft. The
other, from Lock-Mart, is yet another P-3 rebuild called Orion-21.

The 737 MMA is based on the 737-800 but has a bunch of modifications,
including a -900's wings, heavier gear, and a weapon bay forward of
the wing
carry-through.
One quibble Thomas. The Boeing offering is the 737-700 IGW.
http://www.boeing.com/ids/allsystems...3/story09.html

Old news.

http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/jun_03_28.php

"Boeing is refining its MMA proposal for a design based on the Boeing 737
airliner, but has upgraded its entry from the 737-700 design--which would
have the wings of the 737-800--to a 737-800 aircraft fitted with 737-900
wings."


--
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)

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message news:KttBb.7541
The 737 MMA is based on the 737-800 but has a bunch of modifications,
including a -900's wings, heavier gear, and a weapon bay forward of the wing
carry-through.
So I see that Boeing has old info on their website...Sorry about that
Thom.
http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/jun_03_28.php
Its gonna take some engineering to come up with that bomb bay. Also
what about stores separation from the wings? Of course my favorite:
combat vulnerability improvements?
Sure it will have an altitude and transit/sprint speed advantage, but
how will it behave down low? What will ice drag to fuel consumption
below FL100? Low level characteristics seems to be a major issue with
user.