250 to 195 due to FLE issues is not even close to half, Andrew, and I
believe you should reread my previous posts and try again to
understand what I am trying to say. I am not saying it is a good idea
to prolong the P3 to eternity. Rather that the P3 IS adapted to
current missions quite well (everybody knows ASW is currently not the
Primary mission, and I stated other missions in my post the P3 is
currently performing, but it is prudent to retain top notch
capabilities in ASW) If there is anything unclear about my previous
post, that the 737 is not, in my opinion, the answer from a
warfighters standpoint, rather than get personal with me thinking I
don't fully understand the big picture, please get specific with me?
This last post by you and your weak attack on me sounds like you
didn't fully read the post. Try again please?

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:24:22 -0500, Andrew Toppan
wrote:

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.