Boeing 737 Maritime aircraft

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?

JD

"JD" wrote in message
news:8urBb.348503$ao4.1165781@attbi_s51...
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?

JD



And is the lack of a bomb bay a serious shortfall ?


Presumably on newbuild aircraft, the wings would be stressed to carry a
heavy load at sea level.





Cheers


Dave Kearton

"Dave Kearton" ) writes:
"JD" wrote in message
news:8urBb.348503$ao4.1165781@attbi_s51...
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?

JD



And is the lack of a bomb bay a serious shortfall ?


Presumably on newbuild aircraft, the wings would be stressed to carry a
heavy load at sea level.

Seems to have an weapons bay in this image (artist's rendering)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/mma-boeing.jpg

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.

--
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 Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:14:52 +1030, "Dave Kearton"
wrote:

And is the lack of a bomb bay a serious shortfall ?

A moot point, since the proposal does indeed have an internal weapons bay.

--
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" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:14:52 +1030, "Dave Kearton"
wrote:

And is the lack of a bomb bay a serious shortfall ?

A moot point, since the proposal does indeed have an internal weapons bay.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"




Yes, thanks - just read that yesterday - learning all the time.



Cheers


Dave Kearton

Variations of this post have been seen on here about MMA for a few
months now...from an end user, E-1 to MMCO standpoint, the 737 is
nothing more than a "cash cow". It doesn't even come close to the
capabilities of even a P-3C Update 1, let alone UIII or even AIP. Sure
there is a big "technology" improvement, but do we really need it???
I understand the legacy issues (money) of continuing to support the
P-3, but spending millions on engines, airframe (CWS) and mission
avionics upgrades is much better than spending billions on the MMA
737. How much improvement over current capabilities for USW, ASW, BDA,
OTH targeting, and SAR can the MMA promise? I'm sure the cost/benefit
analysis figures have been manipulated to show MMA wins, but you can
manipulate figures to show whatever you want. Do current MMA proposals
prove the 737 is capable of carrying and delivering SLAM-ER, Harpoon,
Maverick, Mines, Rockeye, Torpedoes, MK-82-84 and yes Dorothy even
Nukes (practicing A10 loads were fun in the 80's while deployed to
Japan, we had to go to PI to do them). Hows about SAR? Will the 737
be able to drop supplies/rafts/etc, loiter, slowly for long periods
while waiting for maritime rescue? Not to mention FMS, will other
countries subsidize the future 737 MMA platforms, like they do with
the P3 MPA? Remember the survivability mod on the P3? (foam in the
tanks, ALQ-157 Matador, ALQ-158 bugeye antennas, ALE47/49). Is this
planned for the 737 MMA? OBTW, is the 737 MMA even capable of flying
the MAD profiles that the P3 and even NIMROD fly? Time to take a step
back, and stop thinking out of the box. Sometimes it's good to stay in
the box and improve on a program thats working and proven succesfull,
rather than completely changing it for the sake of Boeing and the
FITREPS of the PMA guys (sorry Joe). The best solution would be to go
back in time to the late 80's and early 90's and resurrect the P7
LRAACA program, or even the then Lockheed/Boeing proposed P-4. If not
that, then spend millions on the current P3 and put new -425 engines,
Sundstrand props (look at E2C/T56/8 blade prop), rewing it, and do
block upgrades on mission avionics. A big area to look at is the
basing and support. All 4 major CPRW bases here in the states have
AIMD's and Depot support for the P3, this alone will cost billions to
replace. What the F... are you thinking about? Restructuring the
entire logistics support to make it contractor support? What about
training? Will the 2,500+ Officers and enlisted that go through the
NAMTRA's and FASO's annually at Whidbey/JAX/Brunswick all of a sudden
go away? Will maintenance all be contract? The big question here is
technology improvement and "bang for the buck". I insist the 737 is
the wrong way to go for all the above reasons.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:08:10 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:

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.

"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

user wrote:

Variations of this post have been seen on here about MMA for a few
months now...from an end user, E-1 to MMCO standpoint, the 737 is
nothing more than a "cash cow". It doesn't even come close to the
capabilities of even a P-3C Update 1, let alone UIII or even AIP. Sure
there is a big "technology" improvement, but do we really need it???
I understand the legacy issues (money) of continuing to support the
P-3, but spending millions on engines, airframe (CWS) and mission
avionics upgrades is much better than spending billions on the MMA
737. How much improvement over current capabilities for USW, ASW, BDA,
OTH targeting, and SAR can the MMA promise? I'm sure the cost/benefit
analysis figures have been manipulated to show MMA wins, but you can
manipulate figures to show whatever you want. Do current MMA proposals
prove the 737 is capable of carrying and delivering SLAM-ER, Harpoon,
Maverick, Mines, Rockeye, Torpedoes, MK-82-84 and yes Dorothy even
Nukes (practicing A10 loads were fun in the 80's while deployed to
Japan, we had to go to PI to do them). Hows about SAR? Will the 737
be able to drop supplies/rafts/etc, loiter, slowly for long periods
while waiting for maritime rescue? Not to mention FMS, will other
countries subsidize the future 737 MMA platforms, like they do with
the P3 MPA? Remember the survivability mod on the P3? (foam in the
tanks, ALQ-157 Matador, ALQ-158 bugeye antennas, ALE47/49). Is this
planned for the 737 MMA? OBTW, is the 737 MMA even capable of flying
the MAD profiles that the P3 and even NIMROD fly? Time to take a step
back, and stop thinking out of the box. Sometimes it's good to stay in
the box and improve on a program thats working and proven succesfull,
rather than completely changing it for the sake of Boeing and the
FITREPS of the PMA guys (sorry Joe). The best solution would be to go
back in time to the late 80's and early 90's and resurrect the P7
LRAACA program, or even the then Lockheed/Boeing proposed P-4. If not
that, then spend millions on the current P3 and put new -425 engines,
Sundstrand props (look at E2C/T56/8 blade prop), rewing it, and do
block upgrades on mission avionics. A big area to look at is the
basing and support. All 4 major CPRW bases here in the states have
AIMD's and Depot support for the P3, this alone will cost billions to
replace. What the F... are you thinking about? Restructuring the
entire logistics support to make it contractor support? What about
training? Will the 2,500+ Officers and enlisted that go through the
NAMTRA's and FASO's annually at Whidbey/JAX/Brunswick all of a sudden
go away? Will maintenance all be contract? The big question here is
technology improvement and "bang for the buck". I insist the 737 is
the wrong way to go for all the above reasons.

I am sure there are some good points in there somewhere, but without
any organization and paragraphing of your arguments, I'm having a
devil of a problem separating them out.

You can be sure that Boeing is organizing and paragraphing *their*
arguments *for* buying the 737 airframe as a P-3 follow-on, making it
easy for the people they are trying to reach [top level DoD/DoN folks
and Congress] to read and think about what Boeing is saying.
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]