More info. on the 737 that will replace the P3

[mpenguin1]

Go here to see the full story
http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/cover1.html

Here are portions of the story.

Under the MMA contract, Boeing will supply the U.S. Navy with the next generation of submarine-hunting planes. A Boeing 737-800 aircraft (modified with -900 wings) will serve as the platform to replace the Navy’s current anti-submarine patrol aircraft, the Lockheed Martin P-3 Orion.

In order to demonstrate the 737 airframe could fly the mission and that its systems were well suited to the mission, Boeing looked at the Navy’s requirements and then explored the possibilities and solutions.

Once team members were convinced the 737 could fly the mission and provide capabilities the customer had not even imagined, they believed they had a winning proposal—if they could convince the Navy, the analysts and the media.

But, there were skeptics. How could a 737 be less expensive than an upgraded P-3, Lockheed Martin’s planned submission? And how could a 737 fly the low missions that were part of maritime patrol operations?
Again, Boeing team members worked together to provide substantiating engineering data on the proposal, which included wind tunnel tests conducted at Boeing’s expense. They created and showed computer simulations and videos at air and trade shows. They made presentations to multiple groups and had ongoing conversations with key decision makers.

Their most compelling argument was to fly Navy P-3 pilots and members of the media on two 737 Boeing Business Jet trips to prove that the 737 could perform all required maneuvers.
<font color="blue"> </font>
The job wasn’t complete, however. There was still a need to make this increased capability affordable. Boeing easily could demonstrate that there was an existing spare parts system for the aircraft. Support centers in North and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia facilitate spare parts distribution for more than 10,000 Boeing aircraft worldwide. Boeing could also solidly back up its assertion that the 737 could get on station faster and stay on station longer than the P-3. The company had reams of data on the reliability of the aircraft’s engines, and could demonstrate the open-system architecture the Navy needed for the mission system.

By doing so, Boeing was able to make MMA more affordable. “They (BCA) have well-developed assembly processes,” Zerr said. “We will get the same product, product, with a less risky assembly process at a lower price.” Under this production plan, the Boeing MMA team expects to save a year in the assembly process and field aircraft for the Navy by 2012 instead of the required service date of 2013.

What were the factors that enabled Boeing to capture MMA? Jim Albaugh, Boeing IDS president and CEO, cited the incredible reliability of the 737—better than 99 percent in commercial service—as a key factor in the win.

“As soon as the first 737 MMA aircraft are delivered to the Navy, our nation’s naval forces will have a dramatic increase in capability and reliability,” he said. The Navy’s stated requirement for reliability is 90 percent, much higher than the existing availability rate of approximately 60 percent for the P-3s.

Value was another of the reasons the Navy cited in awarding the contract to Boeing. At a news conference to announce the contract award, John Young, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, said Boeing offered a slightly lower cost for development than Lockheed Martin.

Young emphasized, however, that cost was not the only consideration. He said the company’s record of managing aircraft programs and delivering aircraft on time tipped the competition in Boeing’s favor, and the 737 offered space and flexibility that the Orion 21 could not match.

“Additionally, the new 737 aircraft offers a modern, highly reliable airframe, which will be equipped with improved maritime surveillance and attack capability, allowing a smaller force to provide worldwide responsiveness,” Young said.

Because of the 737’s proven reliability, the Navy expects to buy 108 MMAs to replace more than 200 existing P-3s.

[Doug Taylor]

Looks pretty sweet!

[mtsu_av8er]

So, just how slow can they get this aircraft?

[Doug Taylor]

an -800 with -900 wings, probably pretty slow!

[Windchill]

Correct me if I'm wrong . . . a P-3 can land on an Aircraft Carrier . . . but a 737???

[JimmyK]

[ QUOTE ]
Correct me if I'm wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

Gladly!! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] I love it when theres a question I know the answer to. Nope the P-3's dont land on aircraft carriers, waaay to big, there all land based. I forget the what its called, but that prop plane they use fo AWACS on the carriers just barely makes it. I think they only have like 18in of clearance between the wing and superstructure when it lands.

[USMCmech]

[ QUOTE ]
Correct me if I'm wrong . . . a P-3 can land on an Aircraft Carrier . . . but a 737???

[/ QUOTE ]

The S-3 Viking is carrier based. It is a twin jet engined carrier based Sub hunter aircraft. This was the A/C that was used as "Navy One" when GWB flew onto the the carrier last spring.

The P-3 Orion is a four engine turboprop land based Sub hunter. It was based on the Lokheed Electra airliner. This was the type of aircraft that suffered a midair and landed in china in early 2001.

The biggest airplanes (size, not sure about weight) that have ever operated of of a US carrier is the E-2 Hawkeye turboprop AWACS, and it's stepchild the C-2 Greyhound.

I think it's pretty bad when you name an airplane after a dog.

There were several tests where a C-130 landed and took off of US carriers. This was discused on a previous post, but the conseneus was that it was far to impratical. One of the main reasons was that the wings on the C-130 wouldnt be able to fold, creating huge problems when it comes to storing them on the flight deck.

As far as the P-3 operating off a carrier it simply wouldn't fit any better than the C-130.

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest airplanes (size, not sure about weight) that have ever operated of of a US carrier is the E-2 Hawkeye turboprop AWACS, and it's stepchild the C-2 Greyhound.

I

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the old RA-5C Vigilante recon bird may have been slightly bigger, could be wrong though. Or maybe it was just the biggest tactial aircraft to operate off a carrier.

[USMCmech]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the old RA-5C Vigilante recon bird may have been slightly bigger, could be wrong though. Or maybe it was just the biggest tactial aircraft to operate off a carrier.

[/ QUOTE ]

I forgot about that one. You might be right regarding the wingspan.

The RA-5C deffinatly was the craziest plane ever carrier based. Origionaly designed to carry atomic bombs in an internal bomb bay, but when released the bomb would sometimes get caught in the slip stream and once even hit the rudder of the plane it was dropped from. To save the program it was converted to be a recon bird.

It had a wingspan that was almost too wide for the landing deck, and an Vref that was so fast it was scary. I spoke to a LSO from durring that time and he said that only the very highest grades from carrier qualification were selected to fly that beast, since it was so hard to get on deck. He also said that "blue water" ops useing that bird were heavily discouraged.

The Vigilante would have been a handfull if it had been based on land, running it off of a tiny floating runway too far from land to divert was almost suicidal. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/insane.gif[/img]

[mpenguin1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The biggest airplanes (size, not sure about weight) that have ever operated of of a US carrier is the E-2 Hawkeye turboprop AWACS, and it's stepchild the C-2 Greyhound.

I

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the old RA-5C Vigilante recon bird may have been slightly bigger, could be wrong though. Or maybe it was just the biggest tactial aircraft to operate off a carrier.

[/ QUOTE ]


Oh boy, my turn, wasn't the A3 Skywarrior the biggest aircraft to land on an aircraft carrier? It wasn't given the nickname the "Whale" for nothing......

[Bandit_Driver]

Didn't the military do a test a year or two ago with a C-130 and an aircraft carrier? Though I read something about a C-130 doing a touch n go on a carrier?

Could be wrong though....

[Grabo172]

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't the military do a test a year or two ago with a C-130 and an aircraft carrier? Though I read something about a C-130 doing a touch n go on a carrier?

Could be wrong though....

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, you are right... but actually it did some Full Stop landings then did an unassisted takeoffs. Just to prove how cool the C-130s are!
Here are some links...

http://www.panix.com/~jac/aviation/c130-carrier.html

http://www.theaviationzone.com/facts...tal.asp#videos

[shooter13]

Wasn't that way back in the 60's or 70's?

[eodfe]

As a Flight Engineer on P-3's for ten years, 5400 hours, I really hate to see it go. It is an extremely reliable aircraft that could shutdown two of its engines, lose its hydraulic systems, lose all electrical power and still make it back to base for a nice landing. As for the 737, that would be great for the pilots and maintenance guys as far as getting experience to work for the airlines. But since the 737 doesn't have an FE, there goes that job; maybe a flying Plane Captian will be needed something like the A-3 had.

We once spent 14.7 hours in the air on a mission in the Persian Gulf, I just wonder what is the endurance of the 737 flying a mission profile.

I also think the biggest carrier based jet was the A-3 skywarrior, hence the nickname, "The Whale." We had a VIP A-3 in VQ-1 that was painted white, the tower guys use to call it"The Great White Whale." I know the Greyhound (C-2) and the Hawkeye (E-2)were pretty large to be landing on the aircraft carrier. The C-130 would be just too big for a carrier, it is not only the takeoff and landings but where the hell do get the hanger space when it is already at a premimum.

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
As a Flight Engineer on P-3's for ten years, 5400 hours, I really hate to see it go. It is an extremely reliable aircraft that could shutdown two of its engines, lose its hydraulic systems, lose all electrical power and still make it back to base for a nice landing. As for the 737, that would be great for the pilots and maintenance guys as far as getting experience to work for the airlines. But since the 737 doesn't have an FE, there goes that job; maybe a flying Plane Captian will be needed something like the A-3 had.



[/ QUOTE ]

Side question: Why are the guys that are dedicated to a particular aircraft called "crew chiefs" in the Air Force and "Plane Captains" in the Navy? And isn't one member of a navy helo called a crew chief? Or does the plane captain fly aboard helos?

[eodfe]

[/ QUOTE ]
Side question: Why are the guys that are dedicated to a particular aircraft called "crew chiefs" in the Air Force and "Plane Captains" in the Navy? And isn't one member of a navy helo called a crew chief? Or does the plane captain fly aboard helos?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question, I don't know the answer. I do know, the Navy has a lot of ground Plane Captians and some flying Plane Captains, it depends on the aircraft. I think the guys that fly with the helos are Crew Chiefs, because they are an integral part the the fight crew. The A-3 Plane Captain really didn't have much to do inflight, his work was mostly on the ground. Also, the PC didn't fly, usually, missions with the aircraft. I know that FE's in VQ-1 had to be qualified Plane Captains.

I hope that is clear as mud. Doesn't the Air Force call the taxi directors, marshallers? The Navy called them linemen. That always got a laugh at AFB's that we would fly out of, the would joke about fixing the telephone lines.

[Grabo172]

[ QUOTE ]
Wasn't that way back in the 60's or 70's?

[/ QUOTE ]

1963

[mpenguin1]

[ QUOTE ]
We had a VIP A-3 in VQ-1 that was painted white, the tower guys use to call it"The Great White Whale."

[/ QUOTE ]

I know when I was at VQ1 we had a VIP P-3, 00, or double nuts, the VIP A-3, was that 007, the same that was painted with the James Bond gun?

[eodfe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We had a VIP A-3 in VQ-1 that was painted white, the tower guys use to call it"The Great White Whale."

[/ QUOTE ]

I know when I was at VQ1 we had a VIP P-3, 00, or double nuts, the VIP A-3, was that 007, the same that was painted with the James Bond gun?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was there from 79-85. We had the VIP P-3 but it was PR-41 then, and the VIP A-3 went down in the ocean coming back from Atsugi around 120 miles from Guam; nothing or no one was ever found. The Squardron CO was flying, CDR Mitchell and the pax were mostly P-3 crew hitching a ride from Japan.

[Timmypig]

Oh man the Vigilante! The nose wheel was 8' rear of the cockpit. Being marshalled on the deck at night, the nose of the aircraft swinging out over the edge, over the briny! Nuts of titanium. I believe the USN eventually forbade nocturnal 'edge of the deck' manoeurvring of the RA-5.

One piece moving vertical stab, one piece horizontal stabs which also acted as roll trim, spoilers not ailerons. Capable of M2.5 (although restricted to M2.0). What a luscious beast.

I read a story of a bloke who banged out of a Vigi 100m off a North Vietnamese beach. His ResCap of F-8s went bingo or winchester and had to depart. A couple of local PAVN troops or coppers waded out into the water to capture him. One was armed with an AK and the other one took his service revolver.

The Jolly Greens and Spads turned up and as his PAVN capters were distracted he reached into his baggy green suit and pulled out a .22" derringer and shot the AK wielding guy. The bloke who had taken his revolver pulled the trigger onto an empty chamber so he shot him with the remaining .22 round in the derringer. The A-1s strafed the beach while a Jolly Green dropped the rescue harness and off he went.

Amazing stuff. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[deskjockey]

I'm sorry I missed the beginning of this discussion...something actually near and dear to my heart

I just left a P-3 squadron and in my last year there Boeing brought their BBJ by and let a bunch of our pilots fly it around, unfortunately I was on a trip or else I would have been all over that. The Boeing pilot would demo a takeoff and climb right to FL410, an emergency descent, and a loiter over the water at 200' at somewhere around 205 or 210 kts. Pretty cool for the P-3 pilot who is accustomed to not climbing much higher than FL200 at max gross weight, especially in warmer climates. From the pilot side of the house all the Navy pilots were excited about the 737. I think most of the flight engineers were a little scared because their job may be in jeopardy, but MMA won't be online for probably another 10 years so no one need to get too excited or worried yet.

[TrinidadGT20]

It's too bad Lockheed didn't design a new plane for the MMA role. I realize the economics probably just weren't there but if they designed it right, Lockheed probably could have entered back in to the commercial segment. I know, I know, wishful thinking!

[MarineNav]

Hello Timmy (or is it Mr. Pig!) jk

I know what "bingo" is, but I've never heard of "winchester". What does that mean?

Thanks,

JR

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
Hello Timmy (or is it Mr. Pig!) jk

I know what "bingo" is, but I've never heard of "winchester". What does that mean?

Thanks,

JR

[/ QUOTE ]

Out o ammo.

Can also be used for pushing someone to frequency 303.0

[H46Bubba]

I gues since I'm the helo guy, I get to answer you're question. Navy Plane Captain is responsible for the basic servicing and performin the post flight inspections, as well as directing the aircraft. Just about the same job as an Air Force crewchief. Now in helos, we have four levels of crewman. We are all qualified plane captains and maintenance workers. A newbie is just that, a FNG, nothing more. Once he's completed the syllabus and takes a checkride, he becomes a "second crewman", then you fly some more hours and complete another syllabus to become a crewchief. The crewchief is the head honcho in the back of the aircraft. Once you get more hour under the belt you can become an ANI (Aircrew NATOPS Instructor), basiclly being able to qualify all the junior guys to do what ever tasks required in type of aircraft, i.e. NVG flights and SAR.