the main thing is on station time, my understanding was that the 737's were a bit short on loiter time. I'd be curious to see how they stack up against a Nimrod MR4 (when they see the light of day)

The wedge tail for the Australian is based on the 700, with all the aerodynamic drag caused by the fin etc, this is bound to reduce the range,a nd endurance, though this is still said to have 9+ hours on station ( range 3,800nm), so think performace shoudl be in this bracket.

Just checking, the MR4's endurance is said to be around 15 hours.

I'm wondering if an opportunity has been missed here? There are a LOT of P-3 Orions out there (Not just the U.S) which will need replacing at some point. Wasn't this an opportunity to design and build a specific maritime patrol aircraft taylored specifically to the needs of this role, rather than 'tinker' with a civilian aircraft? (Yes, I know the Orion is based on the Electra and the Nimrod on the Comet) As GF mentioned, Loiter Time, as well as good range, payload and sensors, seem to be the most important aspects of a good MMA. Designing a specific aircraft for the role could have created a world beater, and tapped into a pretty lucrative market? (Just playing Devils Advocate, and trying to throw out a few ideas)

Lockheed should still consider their model for export, it could be a "cheap" money earner. ASW is beginning to get a profile again. It's becoming a persistent item in the USNI Proceedings mags (this months has another series of articles) The notion of having 2 extra engines to play with in an emergency has always appealed to me. The fact that an extra 2 engines also lets the crew scale their mission more flexibly etc.. seems to be an obvious benefit. Maybe I'm missing things. I guess the issue of centre barrel fatigue was a big determinant.

Couldn't this be a horse trade? Lockheed wins the JSF so Boeing wins the MMA If it was a close call it would be up to the choises of the brass/politicians So could this have played a part in the dissicion?

From what I understand, the 737 line is booked up for some time to come, would have thought it be more expedient to use the 757 or 767 line.

This had got to be a horse trade; from my admittedly limited knowledge of ASW, there are certain things that a 737 might be capable of doing, but others that really require the slow, low altitude work of a prop. Any ASW experts out there to comment?

What you really need for any aircraft in this role is a long station time, and enough power to lift all the sensors and equipment.

>> (GF0012-Aust) >> The notion of having 2 extra engines to play with in an emergency has always appealed to me. The fact that an extra 2 engines also lets the crew scale their mission more flexibly etc.. seems to be an obvious benefit. (Shaken) That depends on how reliable the basic engines are. The CFM56 jet is a relatively modern design and among the most reliable in the world. The Allison turboprop is a VERY old design, whose core was derived from the Jumo's carried by the Me-262 (no kidding, here). It is a case where you NEED those extra engines. (Not to say ETOPS is perfect. There may come a day when some twin loses both engines and goes swimming. But it is quite unlikely, from a pure statistics standpoint). -- Shaken - out --