Boeing wins U.S. Navy airplane deal

http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/14/news/fortune500/boeing_contract.reut/ ^ | June 14, 2004 | cnn money

[KarlInOhio]

I hope they learn the Air Force's lesson and don't take Linda Daschle's advice to lease the planes.

[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!) ;-)

[finnman69]

Click on pic for larger cool drop NOW NOW NOW photo

[Boundless]

> Why not buy updated versions of the P-3?

That's what the P-5 was supposed to be.

Entire program flopped.

[tom h]

"Lockheed was the expected winner, so this is a surprise."

Your perspective is interesting. I work in this industry and I would hardly have said Lockheed was the inevitable winner. The differences in the two offerings were striking. And the poster later on who cited "JSF fallout" is probably right, too.

Lockheed's chances are much better for MC2A and Aerial Common Sensor. And for political reasons and preservation of the industrial base, it makes much better sense to award Boeing MMA, which is primarily aircraft, and Lockheed one of the other two.

[Die_Hard Conservative Lady]

I'm glad to see Boeing won this contract..... I'm partial to them v Lockheed...

[LDO4CNO]

And the P-7 too, I'm sure it comes down to money. If it is the 737 which would be the logical choice, they are still being built and engine upgrades are probably easier with a pod engine design. The p-3 flight hour to maint. man hour ratio is dismal and getting worse every year. I retired 6 years ago and really haven't kept up with the program. I was an old sub chaser and that isn't the primary mission anymore. They (the USN) better keep a unique mission or the airfarce will steal it away!

[smonk]

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?

[beelzepug]

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

I don't know...the Brits have had pretty good success with the Nimrod.

[LDO4CNO]

Yea, we couldn't restart #1 engine one night and ended up back at Cubi Pt. with 14.7 hrs. Everyone was otta cigs and there wasn't a cup of coffee left on the airplane. Ahh, the good old days! Plenty of San Miguel out in Olongapo though!!

[dayton law dude]

Being that I am a Lockheed employee in upstate NY, I'd say I'm not so pleased either. No matter, we're gonna win the Presidential Helo contract in November/December over Sikorsky anyways...that'll bring in the cash!

[Viperb2]

No.. after seeing how poor there flight line maintenance is and given their poor managament of C5AMP and C-130J and F-22, this is not a surprise.

[Ben Hecks]

"...preservation of the industrial base..."

I think you may have hit on the major issue.

[chilepepper]

yup, the loiter time on the P3 is really astonishing.

[kerosene]

Back in the 1980's, another P-3 replacement program was underway. Lockheed proposed a larger, four-engined turboprop, called the P-7. Boeing proposed a variant of the 757! Lockheed won the competition, but they made major boo-boos with weight calculations (among other things), resulting in cost overruns that caused the Navy to kill the program.

P-7 Info

[GBA]

Ping

[COEXERJ145]

Probably one reason Boeing won the contract is because the Navy is already buying 737's.

Boeing C-40A

Based on the 737-700C airliner.

[KC_for_Freedom]

Lockheed's chances are much better for MC2A and Aerial Common Sensor. And for political reasons and preservation of the industrial base, it makes much better sense to award Boeing MMA, which is primarily aircraft, and Lockheed one of the other two.

I think you hit it, its Boeing's turn. Lockheed has won the stealth fighter and joint strike fighter and is up to their neck in difficulties on both programs. Lockheed also just won the common missile and is currently in production on Theater High Altitude Anti Missile Defense. Boeing is fresh, having won most of their awards during the Clinton era. It seems that Lockheed is the main benefactor in a republican administration. (Just in general, the best design plays a big role, and how well the company is expected to handle the job is second. Boeing probably has many more "spare" engineers at this moment making it difficult for Lockheed to compete. As a former Lockheed myself, I am sorry that Boeing ever wins anything, but they have changed their corporate image a lot recently, and maybe it is doing some good.

[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.

[ChEng]

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) including setting up their crews running 7-11s. 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. Spend the money putting "Warthogs" on our border. You "industry" guys (Boeing, etc.) figure out a way to kickass Airbus and leave my dime alone....