,,, P3 replacement ping
Posted on 06/14/2004 2:07:09 PM PDT by avg_freeper
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy on Monday awarded Chicago-based Boeing Co. a multibillion dollar deal to design a replacement for the Navy's fleet of submarine-hunting P-3 aircraft, congressional sources said.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
Boeing really needs the work, but a 737 based maritime patrol aircraft is just stupid. Too fast, too high, with no loiter time on station. When you are using planes to track ships, low and slow is the way to go...
JSF fallout.
Boeing was one of the few stocks in the green today.
And there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth....
Since Lockheed has done almost every other aircraft manufacturer dirty at one time or another, it's fun to see them get the dirty end of the stick for a change.
(Not that I expect them to roll over on this. They may fight nasty, but they're tenacious.)
When SURTASS LFA is perfectly capable of pinpointing the subs, then you really don't need that much loiter time... in that case, speed become more important.
The 37 is a great plane, but with 4000 hrs in P-3's, mostly in the vast western pacific, I say give me 4 engines baby! Get 1500 miles out in westpac in a 737 and lose an engine and you're gonna have a looooong flight home!
ping
Yup! I still got very interested when we lost 1 of 4 way out there.
Why not buy updated versions of the P-3? I can't see any advantage in using jets to patrol for submarines.
Oh, I think that Boeing defiantly has Locheed beat in that department. Do you remember the recent business about Boeing getting employees to spirit away technical documentation from Lockheed? Or when they were making big hiring promises to pentagon procurement people.
Boeing was fined heavily over the past year for these shenanigans but I guess they're being rewarded now.
pabianice (3,000 hours in P-3s)
the spell checker thought that “defiantly” sounded good but I actually meant “definitely”
Especially a two-engine jobby..... There has to be a technical advantage of some sort. I know that the later 737 models are pretty efficient, and they can easily operate on one engine, so I'm guessing they either got the Navy to buy off on reduced mission duration, or showed a cost advantage (more planes but lower out-year costs), or they've been able to achieve a good mission duration.
It'd be interesting to see how the Navy handled that part of the bid.
Way to go, Linda Daschle!
ping
over $50 today.
,,, P3 replacement ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.