To: maddog55
Yeah. A 737 is perfect for a low and slow long loiter time mission.
2 posted on
01/24/2014 10:07:56 AM PST by
null and void
(We need to shake this snowglobe up.)
To: null and void
“Low and slow”
I wonder how much more it costs to fly a 737 for a mission than a P-3 with it’s outboard engines idled?
4 posted on
01/24/2014 10:12:15 AM PST by
maine yankee
(I got my Governor at 'Marden's')
To: null and void
Radar for a sub searcher? It needs sonar
but, wide range, deep monitoring is being done by satellites and sosus
6 posted on
01/24/2014 10:22:00 AM PST by
edcoil
( "All men's miseries derive from not being able to sit in a quiet room alone." - Blaise Pascal)
To: null and void
I was involved with some aspect of the low and slow testing...can’t really say more.
But if you reread the article it doesn’t seem to be the aircraft that’s failing miserably but rather the onboard systems. Although, I will concede the article is a little cryptic in that regard.
18 posted on
01/24/2014 12:09:43 PM PST by
Axeslinger
(Where has my country gone?)
To: null and void
Yeah. A 737 is perfect for a low and slow long loiter time mission. Yes, but propellers aren't pretty or cool.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson