If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"JD" wrote in message
news:8urBb.348503$ao4.1165781@attbi_s51... I was checking out the new Naval Proceedings (I'm a new subscriber) and saw an advertisement for the 737 as a maritime patrol aircraft complete with hard points and weapons. It looks pretty cool, but I was surprised. Does anyone have it in their present inventory or is it merely a proposal to replace the aging P-3? JD And is the lack of a bomb bay a serious shortfall ? Presumably on newbuild aircraft, the wings would be stressed to carry a heavy load at sea level. Cheers Dave Kearton |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Kearton" ) writes:
"JD" wrote in message news:8urBb.348503$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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 40 | October 3rd 08 03:13 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 1st 04 02:31 PM |
Boeing Boondoggle | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 77 | September 15th 04 02:39 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | September 2nd 04 05:15 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | April 5th 04 03:04 PM |