[r9etb]

I can't see any advantage in using jets to patrol for submarines.

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.

[unspun]

Guessing the 737 supports new technology, which can be used from on high. (It may also be able to do more than look for subs, too, but I don't know anything!) ;-)

[Paleo Conservative]

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.

From what I've read, the airframe is based on Boeing's BBJ which is a 737-700 fuselage with the wings and landing gear of a 737-800. It can take off with the same weights as a 737-800 so it has pretty long range due to the extra fuel it can carry.

[Long Cut]

The 737 will likely feature In-Flight Refueling, which the P-3 lacks. Even so, its range figures equal those of ORION, and with less parts and motors.

All it really gives up is onstation time at extreme range, but once again, the IFR nullifies that.

[norton]

"There has to be a technical advantage of some sort... 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."

Maybe all three, I imagine there is some serious work going into stretching duration and I know it is a nightmare to try to maintain an aircraft as long as the P-3 would have to go. Even with a new airframe and upgrades to the P-3, the largely commercial 737 has to offer far lower lifetime cost.