"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message

No, I don't. As I've said at least once, I'm largely playing devil's
advocate.

Me too. I see problems with both offerings...Maybe it will be BAMS to
The Rescue. I had the interesting perspective of seeing both a
next-gen 737 and a P-3 on approach into two seperate airports in view
at the same time a little bit ago. It put a little reality into these
idle ponderings.

I will admit that I tend to be frustrated when people argue that the way
we've always done things is the only possible answer for the future. So I
do tend to favor "different" over "more of the same."

Me too(I am proud to say I've been Plonked By Fred). The one major
thing I see here as "more of the same" is the lack of thought given to
the potential of these aircraft taking battle damage.


I guess I'm also optimistic that companies don't offer solutions that they
don't sincerely believe will do the job. Perhaps that's naive of me, but
the conter-arguemrnt that cmoanies offer cut-rate products kowing that they
will result in fatalities does not match the character of the people I've
worked with.

Boeing's recent corporate behavior doesn't leave me as optimistic.
They have been overly focused on keeping their shareholders
happy-ethics be damned. In some quarters that has been defended, but
there is a real downside.
I'm not saying there is some Oliver Stone-esque corporate strategy to
kill people for for profit; but I will say that Boeing's main
motivation is to keep their civil transport production lines open. Add
in the motivation of those on the military side to keep costs low so
they can get their babies through Congress, and you have a bad
combination.


You seem to be forgetting that the Orion was a civil airframe (it's
basically an Electra, after all.) Whether a given airframe is survivable
clearly has a lot more to do with detailed design than a simple "military
vs. civilian" distinction.

No, I'm not forgetting. Its my point exactly. The detailed designs of
the Boeings and Embraers are based on the possibility of failure, not
damage. Whereas military designs are required by law to undergo live
fire testing, programs such as the MMA, KC767, ACS, et all are
apparently exempt. Yet its these platforms that are being thurst into
new tactical scenarios where they could well take rounds. They will be
WARplanes and should be reagrded as such.

Glass cockpits are not exactly foreign to combat aircraft. If the
Orion-21's cockpit systems are related to those of the C-130J, I'd have
fairly high confidence in their durability.

I can't speak for the C-130J, but the avionics of the F-18 and F-22
are specifically hardened against potential damage.
From what I've personally seen on the Boeing and Embraer offerings,
one round could put them completely in the dark. None these aircraft
are expected to fly that way-and won't for too long. The COTS aspects
of these flight systems is a major selling point, so its apparent that
nothing is going to be done to harden them.

That's a cold calculation, and unlikely to appeal to the operators, but it
is something planners need to think about.

Absolutely, they need to think about such things, but historically
planners have not given much regard to aircraft vulnerability. For
instance, it was a big problem in Vietnam and thats why these people
came into existence:
http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/mission.htm.
Even now you get the sense that the people in this business don't get
the respect they deserve:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/aircraft/

For tomorrow, we can only afford "just enough" airframes, manned by
"just enough" people. We won't have the luxury of surplus that we have
enjoyed in past conflicts. So we'd better get it right the first time.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/aircraft/6.pdf