Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Boeing wins U.S. Navy airplane deal
http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/14/news/fortune500/boeing_contract.reut/ ^ | June 14, 2004 | cnn money

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 ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: asw; boeing; defensecontractors; lockheed; miltech; mma; navy; orion; p3; subhunters
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-132 next last
To: ChEng
"You "industry" guys (Boeing, etc.) figure out a way to kickass Airbus and leave my dime alone...."

LOL....Amen!

Seriously, it is Boeing's turn at bat. As bad as it may sound we do have to make sure we're distributing programs in a manner that keeps contractors involved. Lockheed has plenty of butter on it's bread. Throw a bone to boeing already. Big deal. I am sure the platform will perform just fine.

41 posted on 06/14/2004 5:01:35 PM PDT by VaBthang4 ("He who watches over Israel will neither slumber nor sleep")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: LDO4CNO
2,500 P-3 hours here...all of them at the JEZ station. Still flyin' on 'em.

We need new birds, soonest. Put plainly, if we don't get them soon, a crew or two is gonna die.

Few if any flights take off nowadays and come back with NOTHING broken or malfunctioning.

42 posted on 06/14/2004 5:35:19 PM PDT by Long Cut (Certainty of Death, small chance of Success...What are we waiting for?...Gimli the Dwarf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
SURTASS still has a long way to go before it gets to the level you think it's at, hutch. It's not even a part of our tactics right now, nor even our future plans.

Look for it to quietly go away.

43 posted on 06/14/2004 5:37:05 PM PDT by Long Cut (Certainty of Death, small chance of Success...What are we waiting for?...Gimli the Dwarf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ghostrider; LDO4CNO; Modernman
Hey, Tomcats and Hornets do just fine with only two motors. The Boeing prototype was flown around to all the bases last year, which was one of its selling points...they already had an airplane that could fly, while Lockheed only had drawings.

They were pretty convincing (with figures to prove it) that the loiter time of the 737 was at least comparable to that of an ORION. Plus, the 737 has the capacity for In-Flight Refueling, thus extending the range indefinetely. You have to remember, also, that those two engines are far more reliable than the ORION's four.

BTW, I've had to ride one back with TWO engines in the bag...#'s 4 and 2, and that was in a thunderstorm, so I know how's ye feels, Shipmates.

44 posted on 06/14/2004 5:43:13 PM PDT by Long Cut (Certainty of Death, small chance of Success...What are we waiting for?...Gimli the Dwarf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
Way to go, Linda Daschle!

Exactly.

45 posted on 06/14/2004 5:44:45 PM PDT by Captainpaintball (feh!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Actually, every pilot who took the prototype for a ride when it visited the RAG last year loved it and could only ask, "WHEN?".

Us Aircrew are likewise excited about it. Don't get us wrong, we love the old ORION, but she's due for retirement before someone gets hurt. Sorry, but when you climb aboard and all you can smell on the bird is pi$$, vomit, hydro fluid, and kerosene, in that order, it's time to look at a new model.

46 posted on 06/14/2004 5:46:41 PM PDT by Long Cut (Certainty of Death, small chance of Success...What are we waiting for?...Gimli the Dwarf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
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.

47 posted on 06/14/2004 5:48:40 PM PDT by Long Cut (Certainty of Death, small chance of Success...What are we waiting for?...Gimli the Dwarf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: smonk; unspun
"is there any chance that the navy envisions multiple rolls for the same basic airframe, and this decision will get the cost down per plane for future planes?"

You are correct. The current P-3 even now performs far more roles than the basic ASW mission. We do that still, of course, but we also do surface search, reconnaisance (both feet-wet and feet-dry), anti-surface attack, land cruise missile attack, mining, search and rescue, counter-drug ops, and treaty enforcement.

Some of our birds have taken fire recently over Iraq AND Afghanistan, where they provide real-time intel to the boys on the ground.

We patrol the Eastern Med and IO for terr weapons smugglers, plus we still keep an eye or two on the Russians and Chinese.

The new MMA will be able to do ALL of that, as per the Navy's request, plus even more if need be, and it will do it with all-new electronics and weapons.

48 posted on 06/14/2004 5:54:28 PM PDT by Long Cut (Certainty of Death, small chance of Success...What are we waiting for?...Gimli the Dwarf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ChEng; Poohbah; Pukin Dog
"Am I missing something here? Who are they going to be hunting? Hey guys, for a lot less then 4 billion we could BUY all the outstanding Russian subs( as we have many of their newer naval support ships)"

Do you even have a clue how much a nuclear submarine of ANY nationality costs? The Russians kept their very best, and they SOLD the rest. Even if they no longer fly the Russian flag, they'll still be at sea, and bear watching.

"China, Canada or N. Korea? They have junk, lucky to make a cruise and back home again, so keep a few P-3s around as watch dogs. "

Except for the brand-new KILO classes the Chinese just bought from the Russsians, or the new SONG class whose motors came from some very good European engineers. Whoops, let's not forget the Germans, shall we, who produce the finest diesel-powered subs in the world today, and gleefully sell them to anyone wit the cash. Those are quieter than many nukes, BTW. Oh, and the French, who make up for the low quality of theirt AGOSTA and DAPHNE with cut-rate, firte sale prices to whomever wants one. Oh, forgive me! I almost forgot the SIX KILO-Classes that Iran owns, and uses in the straights of Hormuz. Probably for entirely peaceful purposes, right?

I haven't even mentioned new advances like Air-Independant Propulsion, which, again, the Euros and Chinese and NK's are all quite excited about...it's essentially a DIESEL engine that chemically makes its own oxygen like a nuke, so it need not surface nearly as often as older diesel designs, and is MUCH quieter still.

PLease, do some research.

"Spend the money putting "Warthogs" on our border."

And just how will you then secure the COASTLINES? Guess what...you'll probably need a long-ranged, large patrol/reconnnaisance aircraft with some good sensors including IR, Photo, RADAR, ESM, and Acoustics to watch for the subs...Hmmm, sounds familiar...

49 posted on 06/14/2004 6:07:10 PM PDT by Long Cut (Certainty of Death, small chance of Success...What are we waiting for?...Gimli the Dwarf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut

Well! Faced with the threat of French and German subs (ICBM capable I presume) we should have a long range, high endurance flying platform that can track them down. Maybe something like an, oh, like a C-130, yea, thats the ticket, flys well on two engines (economy) staying on station forever(ask the Coast Guard) and we have hundreds (maybe thousands) of them, plus a million guys that know how to care, feed and fly them. Hey, get off your ass and do something about Airbus...Oh, Diesel subs? You mean air breathing subs. They are not true submarines, they are submersible boats, what threat are they? (am sure you can think of one) The only true submarines are nucs.


50 posted on 06/14/2004 7:11:17 PM PDT by ChEng
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: ChEng; mylife; Poohbah; hchutch
Well, of course my expertise is limited by the fact that I've only worked at tracking, finding, and learning their capabilities for over a decade. Oh, and having spent four overseas deployments now and 2500 hours in P-3's over that time doing all of the missions I listed above, sometimes whilst being shot at.

Your expertise seems to come from a strange pride in your own LACK of knowledge.

It might interest you to know, that C-130's and P-3's share the same engines and basic airframe parts. However, the ORION has NOT been replaced by newer ORIONS, as the 130 has. Our supply of flyable aircraft is dwindling. The ones that are left WILL kill a crew in the next few years...they are simply that old.

"Oh, Diesel subs? You mean air breathing subs. They are not true submarines, they are submersible boats, what threat are they?"

Obviously, you didn't read the post you replied to. Modern diesel submarines are every bit as quiet and capable as nukes, Sport. Especially the German ones...they lead the world in the technology and engineering. When they put out their Air-Independant Propulsion engines this year, they will be the equal of our best nukes.

However, I will not argue further with someone who posted the line above with a straight face. You have no idea how misinformed you are, or how ignorant.

" The only true submarines are nucs."

A diesel is just as capable of sinking a carrier as a nuke is, Sport. In fact, in excercises, they HAVE proven their ability to do so.

Of course, you know better, from your couch, right?

51 posted on 06/14/2004 8:00:47 PM PDT by Long Cut (Certainty of Death, small chance of Success...What are we waiting for?...Gimli the Dwarf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut

I was thinking of the Low-Frequency Active system that the Navy just spent a lot of time fighting for against several environmental groups (albeit in court).

I can guess the type of tactics that the Boeing P-8 (I think that is the next available designation) would use in conjunction with that system...


52 posted on 06/14/2004 8:18:56 PM PDT by hchutch ("Go ahead. Leave early and beat the traffic. The Milwaukee Brewers dare you." - MLB.com 5/11/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut

Oh, and do not forget the AIP subs comin' out... you know, the ones using the fuel cells. Quieter than diesels.


53 posted on 06/14/2004 8:23:58 PM PDT by hchutch ("Go ahead. Leave early and beat the traffic. The Milwaukee Brewers dare you." - MLB.com 5/11/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut

How well do you think a 737 will handle down on the deck as opposed to a P3? Can they maneuver as good? Do props have any acceleration advantage over engines? I mean in the engines themselves not the airframe.


54 posted on 06/14/2004 8:25:52 PM PDT by Rockpile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Yep, those are what I referred to as Air-Independant Propulsion in post #49.

As far as SURTASS LFA goes, I've heard absolutely NO mention of it as a viable, tactical option for months now. Yes, the Navy went to court for it, but that was, like so many other things of that nature, to show that the environMENTALists couldn't dictate to a military service what it could do or test.

If it comes online and can be proven, fine. However, I've seen no such proof yet. The guys up in Kef aren't too impressed, either, and if anyone would have been screaming for it, it waqs them.

55 posted on 06/14/2004 8:28:58 PM PDT by Long Cut (Certainty of Death, small chance of Success...What are we waiting for?...Gimli the Dwarf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Rockpile
It remains to be seen, because they'll be hopping the engines up some. However, modern turbofans pretty well approximate the short-field performance of a turboprop from the 1950's, as the P-3's frame and engines are.

From what I've seen, the 737, if it is properly stressed, will handle just as well. Don't forget, the P-3's four engines all turned in the same direction (if you're not a multi-engine pilot, ask one what this means), and there are, well, FOUR of the big, oily things hanging out there. That affects both "G" loading and rolling moment.

With two less engines, but with more overall performance, the 737 SHOULD do just fine. The P-3 started life as the Lockheed Electra, recall...a passenger airliner. We figured out how to do some pretty interesting things in it over 40 years, with sheer ingenuity. We'll do the same with a "P-8".

56 posted on 06/14/2004 8:34:42 PM PDT by Long Cut (Certainty of Death, small chance of Success...What are we waiting for?...Gimli the Dwarf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: bondjamesbond

The folks who chose I'm sure also had your concerns but it seems Boeing answered their concerns successfully. These people are not stupid. Btw, I read an article way back where Boeing showed these folks at the pentagon that the 737 can indeed fly very low and slow to match the P-3.


57 posted on 06/14/2004 8:39:25 PM PDT by David1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut

Actually SPORT, I have been shot at and HIT, not from my couch, but on a street in Chu Lai, RVN, Oct. 1, 1966. While I honor your service, I see we are narrowing your argument..You have a problem with the C-130? State it. German subs, almost as good as nucs. The qualifying word is "almost". And you don't think our government has a say, along with NATO, the end point of German sub sales(they don't move about like used cars), nor do we not monitor (your job) their movement..By the way, how many of these subs have been constructed and who bought them? You seem to know everything, answer me that(suggest Jane's), SPORT.


58 posted on 06/14/2004 8:41:37 PM PDT by ChEng
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut; LDO4CNO; Modernman
Those were definitely the good old days! Back when I was a kid, I used to watch the C121 Super Constellations (the "3 Tail Jobs") come into Tachikawa from Hickam. I don't think I saw many that didn't have an engine out.
59 posted on 06/14/2004 8:50:17 PM PDT by ghostrider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
I saw the welcome news on your new bird. Bet you are pleased?

I also saw the argument, and decided not to chime in. I have decided that life is to short to argue procurement with couch potatoes on the web.

60 posted on 06/14/2004 8:50:35 PM PDT by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-132 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson