The Navy replacement for the P-3 is ___________

GZR_Sactargets · Post by **GZR_Sactargets** » 01 May 2008, 14:36

....... the B-737.

Boeing P-8A Poseidon Deliveries To Start Next Year

Tue, 29 Apr '08

Orion Replacement Seen As Vital For Company's Military Image

The high profile award of the US Air Force's new aerial tanker contract to
Northrup Grumman has been a public defeat for Boeing, but in the big
picture, the company's military business is doing just fine.

Last week, Boeing announced first-quarter earnings that beat Wall Street
projections. As he filled in the details, CEO Jim McNerney observed to the
Seattle Post-Intelligencer that the company won nine of 11 major US
military contract competitions last year. "Our hit rate has been very, very
high," he said.

Among the programs succeeding in the shadow of the KC-X tanker controversy
is the P-8A Poseidon, due for first deliveries to the US Navy next year.
The plane is based on the 737, but will be supplied to the Navy equipped
with bomb bay doors and weapon pylons under its wings. The planes will
replace aging P-3 Orions which have been flying since the 1960s. Adm. Gary
Roughead, chief of naval operations, calls the P-3, "tired iron."

The Navy wanted 100 planes, and Lockheed proposed supplying an updated P-3,
but Boeing won the bid, and will provide 100 of the new, 737-based
submarine hunters. The victory was good news after Boeing lost another Navy
contract to Northrup last week, to supply 44 unmanned aerial vehicles for
use in patrolling for surface ships. Those will be used in conjunction with
the new P-8A manned aircraft.

The P-I observes that the P-8A, which will be the first military plane
Boeing builds on a standard commercial assembly line, may be the last 737
variant built at the company's plant in Renton, Washington. By the time the
last of the Navy's Poseidons are delivered, Boeing is expected to have
started production on a replacement for the 737, which will likely be built
in Everett.

The P-8A could also be the last fixed-wing plane Boeing builds for the
military for quite a while. Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group, an
industry consulting firm, notes that Boeing's fighter production has
peaked, and production of the C-17 transport is winding down. How the P-8A
performs its missions dropping sonobuoys and detecting subs will determine,
among other things, whether Boring can sell the plane to other nations.

"This is pretty much it," Aboulafia said. "It better work, because Boeing
has a lot riding on this in the fixed-wing market for military aircraft
integration."

**An email from a friend.
FMI: www.boeing.com, www.navy.mil

jetmax · Post by **jetmax** » 01 May 2008, 16:33

Some how a 737 with Harpoon missile under the wings sounds kinda cool

Savage · Post by **Savage** » 01 May 2008, 16:52

Oh great, another classic military shape replaced with a modified bus.

Firebird · Post by **Firebird** » 01 May 2008, 16:59

Errrm, Sav. The P-3 is a modified bus

.

Jumpshot724 · Post by **Jumpshot724** » 01 May 2008, 17:27

P-3s are TERRIBLE, it's about time they drop em. When my dad was in he and his buddy were tryin to deadhead home to LI from Florida,and his buddy had a P-3 pilot friend so they hopped onboard one that was goin back to Brunswick. My dad said it was the worst flight of his life lol

SMOC · Post by **SMOC** » 01 May 2008, 17:53

Jumpshot724 wrote:P-3s are TERRIBLE, it's about time they drop em. When my dad was in he and his buddy were tryin to deadhead home to LI from Florida,and his buddy had a P-3 pilot friend so they hopped onboard one that was goin back to Brunswick. My dad said it was the worst flight of his life lol

There's a reason they've been in service as long as they have... it's not because they "are terrible".

Jumpshot724 · Post by **Jumpshot724** » 01 May 2008, 18:07

There's a reason they've been in service as long as they have... it's not because they "are terrible".

I should have clarified, I meant terrible to fly, not at their job. They are very effective at what they do, just not what you want to be stuck in lol

SMOC · Post by **SMOC** » 01 May 2008, 18:14

Jumpshot724 wrote:I should have clarified, I meant terrible to fly, not at their job. They are very effective at what they do, just not what you want to be stuck in lol

Never have to land on a postage stamp in the middle of the night, never have to live in a boat surround by 5000 other men, when you deploy you deploy to the nicer living conditions, etc... Flying P-3s isn't a terrible job. It's not like flying AWACS or even Hawkeyes. From a passenger standpoint... as mentioned, you're not in a Hawkeye or even a Greyhound.

Savage · Post by **Savage** » 01 May 2008, 22:55

Firebird wrote:Errrm, Sav. The P-3 is a modified bus .

But a classic one, not just a flying cigar tube that was made with no care for aesthetics whatsoever (never mind not being neutered by today's 'green' restrictions).

MIKE JG · Post by **MIKE JG** » 02 May 2008, 00:14

I still don't get replacing a 4 engined turboprop with a 2 engined, high-bypass turbofan platform. Last time I checked, jets were built to fly in the flight levels, not down on the deck. Now you take a platform that is very fuel efficient at low altitude and one that could shut down 50% of its engines and just cruise for hours on end with one that can not shut down 50% of its engines and cruise at low level for hours on end.

Just doesn't make sense to me. They need a replacement, but a 737 is not what I would be looking for.

Javier Tapia · Post by **Javier Tapia** » 02 May 2008, 00:34

Here, in Chile, the P-3's are being replaced by the CN-295 Persuader... considering that the USAF is also acquiring CN-235s for cargo operations wouldn't this aircraft be a better option considering the joint trainig for pilots and maintenaice crews?

just an opinion

BadPvtDan · Post by **BadPvtDan** » 02 May 2008, 02:13

Javier Tapia wrote:... considering that the USAF is also acquiring CN-235s for cargo operations wouldn't this aircraft be a better option considering the joint trainig for pilots and maintenaice crews?

Yes, and I think we have an AI version, too!

wktjr · Post by **wktjr** » 03 May 2008, 20:30

Without going into a lot of detail, the selection of a 737 derivative was based on projected cost savings. They are going to use contract maintenance and they
are hyping the availability of a world- wide supply network in place already. I was at a meeting with the CNO a few years back and in response to a question he threw out how some 737's have had the same engine on the wing for 25,000 plus hours.

Projected off-the-shelf savings is what won that contract.

Personally, I think the savings aren't going to materialize as they hoped once they're in an operational environment.

Victory103 · Post by **Victory103** » 04 May 2008, 00:34

That's what I'm getting from other USN forums. What's your rate? Prior AW myself, but helos.

scottr5213 · Post by **scottr5213** » 04 May 2008, 05:57

Some how a 737 with Harpoon missile under the wings sounds kinda cool

wktjr · Post by **wktjr** » 04 May 2008, 20:54

Victory103 wrote:That's what I'm getting from other USN forums. What's your rate? Prior AW myself, but helos.

ATCS and my signature tells the rest.