NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Air Transportation Article Index : Current 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

The Boeing 737 Goes To War

January 28, 2009: The U.S. Navy and Air Force really like the Boeing 737 airliner. The two services are in the process of buying over 150 of them. The B-737 has been used successfully since the 1960s as an airliner. It first flew in 1965, and over 5,000 have been built.

The U.S. Navy C-40A is a modified Boeing 737-700C commercial aircraft. The plane entered service in 2001, and 19 have been built, eleven for the navy. The 78 ton aircraft can carry 121 passengers, or eight cargo pallets (or a combination of both, usually three pallets and 70 passengers.) Max range is 5,600 kilometers. It normally carries a crew of five (two pilots, one crew chief, one loadmaster and one transport safety specialist, which is what the navy calls a flight attendant). When carrying just cargo, the flight attendant does not come along. The air force got four V-40Bs, which are basically executive transports, that can also operate as airborne headquarters. The other six air force aircraft are C-40Cs, which is basically the same as the C-40A. The C-40A is operated by navy reservists, and is mainly used to rush needed parts or personnel to where the fleet needs them. The C-40A replaced the C-137 (a military version of the 148 ton B-707.)

The navy is also using the 737 as the basis for its new P-8 maritime reconnaissance aircraft. The C-40 experience had a lot to do with the P-8 decision. Cruise speed for the 737 is 910 kilometers an hour and the P-8 version has a crew of 10-11 pilots and equipment operators, who operate the search radar and various other sensors. The 737 has hard points on the wings for torpedoes or missiles. The P-8A will be the first 737 designed with a bomb bay and four wing racks for weapons. The  P-8 costs about $275 million each. Five are on order, and the first flight is to take place this year. Eventually, over a hundred P-8s are expected to enter service (for the U.S. Navy foreign customers as well.) The navy also plans to order another seven C-40As.

 

 

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article ISRAEL: Don't Make It Look Like A Bribe


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
turtle    P-8   1/28/2009 2:55:12 PM
I am somewhat skeptical of using an jet engined plane as maritime patrol and ASW platform. I know British used Nimrod, but I always felt piston engine is more fuel efficient and has more endurance than jet engine.
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       1/28/2009 4:43:47 PM
1)  If they have engineered a bomb bay into the 737 airframe, I don't see why any and all 7x7 a/c cannot likewise have a bomb bay.  Future bomber problem (minus passive stealth or supersonic speed):  SOLVED.  Goodnight, and have a pleasant tomorrow.
 
2)  Why the 737 as opposed to any and all other Boeing airliners?  Just the best fit?  Any special features?  ISTR that 737s are crashier than other Boeings.  Other than any size/weight/speed/ceiling/range factors, the only other thing that jumps out at me is that the 727 should be favored for shortest T/L reqs.   Why not a 737 tanker or cargo derivative?

 3)  Range/endurance is as range/endurance does.  The speed is certainly important in maximizing coverage.  And IIRC the chief thing you want props for, is for low altitude performance, and apparently modern techniques means you no longer need to spend much time at wavetop levels.
 
Boeing airliners FTW!
 
Quote    Reply

arodrig6       1/28/2009 5:41:08 PM

1)  If they have engineered a bomb bay into the 737 airframe, I don't see why any and all 7x7 a/c cannot likewise have a bomb bay.  Future bomber problem (minus passive stealth or supersonic speed):  SOLVED.  Goodnight, and have a pleasant tomorrow.


 

2)  Why the 737 as opposed to any and all other Boeing airliners?  Just the best fit?  Any special features?  ISTR that 737s are crashier than other Boeings.  Other than any size/weight/speed/ceiling/range factors, the only other thing that jumps out at me is that the 727 should be favored for shortest T/L reqs.   Why not a 737 tanker or cargo derivative?





 3)  Range/endurance is as range/endurance does.  The speed is certainly important in maximizing coverage.  And IIRC the chief thing you want props for, is for low altitude performance, and apparently modern techniques means you no longer need to spend much time at wavetop levels.


 

Boeing airliners FTW!


I believe the 727 is out of production since mid 80s.
 
Quote    Reply

panzerboy       1/28/2009 7:24:05 PM
Propellor driven does not equate to piston engined. Most prop aircraft these days, and especially maritime surveillance, are turbo-prop. The last piston engined ASW aircraft I'm aware of was the Avro Shackleton, this was basically an extended Lancaster airframe with RR Griffon driving contra-rotating props. Or perhaps Argentine S2 trackers were the last piston ASW?
 
Quote    Reply

Librarian    Required payload   1/28/2009 7:33:39 PM
In choosing the 737 airframe for the C-40 and the P-8 missions, the various services involved were looking for jetliners with relatively modest payloads, hence choosing the smallest basic airframe of the Boeing line-up. The payload requirements of a tanker or a dedicated cargo hauler are more than a 737 airframe can be expected to deliver. The smallest aircraft in the USAF tanker competition was the 767, a much bigger aircraft. Likewise, the 737 airframe doesn't lend itself to easy loading of bulky freight. It also doesn't have particularly long range.
 
As far as, is 737 being crashier than other Boeings, I think is necessary to point out that far more 737s have been made than other jet airliner.  I remember once doing the math and coming the conclusion that by the time the last 737 comes off the assembly line, there will likely be more than 10,000 built! That is a lot of planes, and a lot of chances for it to crash.  In addition, the basic 737 design dates back to the 1960s, before modern design techniques came into effect.  Furthermore, as the 737 is something of an "entry-level" aircraft for airlines, it is used by many smaller and less reliable airlines. Hence, the apparent increased frequency of crashes. For a first-class operator like the USN or the USAF, the current generation of 737s are very safe.
 
On the other hand, for the Maritime patrol mission, I can't help but wonder if the first generation of P-8 pilots will longer for the four engines of the P-3 (or perhaps even those of the Nimrod).
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       1/28/2009 8:04:51 PM
Librarian, thank you, asked and answered on (2).  On (1), I repeat, will everybody who has kindly or not so kindly explained to me why the B-3 has to be another multibillion-dollar clean-sheet-of-paper million-change-order design instead of a 7x7 rework, please step forward, insert foot in mouth, chew? 
 
Why should the B-52 waste another precious flight-hour dropping PGMs in permissive airspace when we have just been reminded - by a recent SP post on their nuclear warfighting upgrades such as improved flash curtains - that this is not what they were born to do?
 
Quote    Reply

arodrig6       1/29/2009 12:25:49 AM

Librarian, thank you, asked and answered on (2).  On (1), I repeat, will everybody who has kindly or not so kindly explained to me why the B-3 has to be another multibillion-dollar clean-sheet-of-paper million-change-order design instead of a 7x7 rework, please step forward, insert foot in mouth, chew? 

 

Why should the B-52 waste another precious flight-hour dropping PGMs in permissive airspace when we have just been reminded - by a recent SP post on their nuclear warfighting upgrades such as improved flash curtains - that this is not what they were born to do?

The Air Force likes spiffy new fast planes. :-)
 
Also, though the recent wars haven't needed, someday we may face an enemy where stealth, speed, survivability, etc... come in handy. 
 
That said, I am a fan of the 7x7-with-a-bomb-bay idea as a B-52 replacement. Seems like a sensible price point. 
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       1/29/2009 5:36:20 AM

Librarian, thank you, asked and answered on (2).  On (1), I repeat, will everybody who has kindly or not so kindly explained to me why the B-3 has to be another multibillion-dollar clean-sheet-of-paper million-change-order design instead of a 7x7 rework, please step forward, insert foot in mouth, chew? 

Because they want a plane that can go places that a 7x7 would not survive long enough to get to.  Sure, 90+% of the possible missions will not require those capabilities, but the fact that you have the ability forces the enemy to plan and prepare for it, or the consequences.  FUD factor (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) has probably prevented more wars than we will ever know.

Why should the B-52 waste another precious flight-hour dropping PGMs in permissive airspace when we have just been reminded - by a recent SP post on their nuclear warfighting upgrades such as improved flash curtains - that this is not what they were born to do?

Because we already have them on hand, are VERY good at the job, and we have lot's of spares.
 
If we started today your 7x7 rework bomber, it would not be available at the front for 6-10 years!  The small bomb bay on the P-8 will require a lot of structural reinforcing, a series of 3 to 4 large bomb bays (you do want maximum payload and flexibility, don't you?) would probably require a complete redesign of the entire fuselage.  You need to design , prototype, test, modify, and build the planes, then form squadrons and establish logistics, and finally qualify it for each of the weapons it will use.
 
Quote    Reply

hybrid       1/29/2009 2:13:04 PM

Librarian, thank you, asked and answered on (2).  On (1), I repeat, will everybody who has kindly or not so kindly explained to me why the B-3 has to be another multibillion-dollar clean-sheet-of-paper million-change-order design instead of a 7x7 rework, please step forward, insert foot in mouth, chew? 

 

Why should the B-52 waste another precious flight-hour dropping PGMs in permissive airspace when we have just been reminded - by a recent SP post on their nuclear warfighting upgrades such as improved flash curtains - that this is not what they were born to do?
Because the last time the idea popped up for a civilian conversion of an airliner into a bomber (aka the infamous B-747 idea) which actually had a lot of merits going for it in terms of potential payload and range, the Russkies at the time told us (being the US) that they would target any and all potential civilian airliners of the same make as potential bombers and thus shoot them out of the sky. Seeing as there were a lot of 747s back then even flying around and only more now that came off as a bad idea. You DO NOT want your potential enemy shooting down civilian aircraft right and left because you decided to make your bomber aircraft on the same airframe as the civilian passenger one. The liability lawsuits in the US alone would have the goverment spinning in a quandry for decades.
A 737 bomber idea is just worse with thousands of them running around, an ASW aircraft based on the 737 just barely scrapes by the that above problem mainly because it would be out operating at sea and running around away from ground based SAM sites.

 
Quote    Reply

Hurlbee36       1/29/2009 5:00:38 PM

 The small bomb bay on the P-8 will require a lot of structural reinforcing, a series of 3 to 4 large bomb bays (you do want maximum payload and flexibility, don't you?) would probably require a complete redesign of the entire fuselage.
And then there is the aircraft's C/B (center of balance) limits to consider, not only relating to flight but possible damage to the A/C's structure over time if improperly engineered.  In addition, any "commercial type" bomber would require beefed up ECM since it will be VERY visible to even the oldest radar - a step backwards to the 60's design.  It's been awhile since surface to air missiles have been a real threat and probably why there are suggestions to use a commercially designed air "bus" for pax and cargo as a bomber.
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       1/29/2009 5:20:31 PM




Librarian, thank you, asked and answered on (2).  On (1), I repeat, will everybody who has kindly or not so kindly explained to me why the B-3 has to be another multibillion-dollar clean-sheet-of-paper million-change-order design instead of a 7x7 rework, please step forward, insert foot in mouth, chew? 




Because they want a plane that can go places that a 7x7 would not survive long enough to get to.  Sure, 90+% of the possible missions will not require those capabilities,
 
 That's why the limo companies have ten Lincoln Town Cars for every Rolls or Mercedes.
Meanwhile, the B-52 is also a barn door on radar.  Any electronics can be cross-applied which is all that keeps B-52 viable.
 
 
but the fact that you have the ability forces the enemy to plan and prepare for it, or the consequences.  FUD factor (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) has probably prevented more wars than we will ever know.

I swear I said you would use these in permissive env'ts.  By all means get yourself a penetrator.  I do think for all these brushfire wars it would be nicer to try and spend $100B than $1T "keeping the natives down," etc.


Why should the B-52 waste another precious flight-hour dropping PGMs in permissive airspace when we have just been reminded - by a recent SP post on their nuclear warfighting upgrades such as improved flash curtains - that this is not what they were born to do?




Because we already have them on hand, are VERY good at the job, and we have lot's of spares.

 
No, we don't!  The B-52 engine is in crisis!   And we chopped most of 'em up anyway. 
 
 

If we started today your 7x7 rework bomber, it would not be available at the front for 6-10 years! 
 
 
Then, as Napoleon would say, we better get right on that. Which is what I tell people when they whine about getting the oil out of Alaska.  If it's going to take so long, what are we waiting for?
 
 
 
The small bomb bay on the P-8 will require a lot of structural reinforcing, a series of 3 to 4 large bomb bays (you do want maximum payload and flexibility, don't you?) would probably require a complete redesign of the entire fuselage. 
 
 
I dunno, maybe Good Enough payload and flex is good enough.  Play with it.  I bet if we were motivated (e.g., losing a war) we'd beat your proposed schedule by a fair amount. B-7x7G will be better than B-7x7A, as always.  The perfect is the enemy of the good.
 
 
You need to design , prototype, test, modify, and build the planes, then form squadrons and establish logistics, and finally qualify it for each of the weapons it will use.
 
 
These are essentially mods to an a/c series the armed forces know intimately.  You think this is harder than building Looking Glass or ABL?  We do this stuff all the damn time!  Quit whining!

 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       1/29/2009 5:26:05 PM




Librarian, thank you, asked and answered on (2).  On (1), I repeat, will everybody who has kindly or not so kindly explained to me why the B-3 has to be another multibillion-dollar clean-sheet-of-paper million-change-order design instead of a 7x7 rework, please step forward, insert foot in mouth, chew? 



 



Why should the B-52 waste another precious flight-hour dropping PGMs in permissive airspace when we have just been reminded - by a recent SP post on their nuclear warfighting upgrades such as improved flash curtains - that this is not what they were born to do?


Because the last time the idea popped up for a civilian conversion of an airliner into a bomber (aka the infamous B-747 idea) which actually had a lot of merits going for it in terms of potential payload and range, the Russkies at the time told us (being the US) that they would target any and all potential civilian airliners of the same make as potential bombers and thus shoot them out of the sky. Seeing as there were a lot of 747s back then even flying around and only more now that came off as a bad idea. You DO NOT want your potential enemy shooting down civilian aircraft right and left because you decided to make your bomber aircraft on the same airframe as the civilian passenger one. The liability lawsuits in the US alone would have the goverment spinning in a quandry for decades.
 
 
 
Yeah, yeah...a reasonable point, although they never like anything we do.  OK, we coat in RAM so they can't see it - happy Ivan?  Or we add some distinctive visual cues that make it fairly clear what it is.  I wonder they haven't shot down more AWACS or recon birds.  Oh wait they have....
 
How much you want to bet the Russians have purchased 7x7s and added attack mods for just such a purpose?


A 737 bomber idea is just worse with thousands of them running around, an ASW aircraft based on the 737 just barely scrapes by the that above problem mainly because it would be out operating at sea and running around away from ground based SAM sites.


Nah, I don't see it.  Like I said this is not for Mission to Moscow, this is for bug-hunting.
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       1/29/2009 5:29:33 PM




 The small bomb bay on the P-8 will require a lot of structural reinforcing, a series of 3 to 4 large bomb bays (you do want maximum payload and flexibility, don't you?) would probably require a complete redesign of the entire fuselage.



And then there is the aircraft's C/B (center of balance) limits to consider, not only relating to flight but possible damage to the A/C's structure over time if improperly engineered. 
 
 
 
Meh, this is why you pay engineers the big bux.  If I bet Herald he couldn't fix it, he'd go out and fix it.
 
 
 
In addition, any "commercial type" bomber would require beefed up ECM since it will be VERY visible to even the oldest radar - a step backwards to the 60's design.  It's been awhile since surface to air missiles have been a real threat and probably why there are suggestions to use a commercially designed air "bus" for pax and cargo as a bomber.
 
 
Like. The. B-52. Which. Is. The. Most. Popular. Most. Used. Cheapest. Aircraft. Right. Now.
 
Build your new B-1, build your new B-2.  I lurves me some new airframes.  But right now they are sitting quietly while Mama BUFF goes out and does the work.  Isn't that what like every fifth article at SP says?
 
 
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       1/29/2009 9:28:25 PM

I am somewhat skeptical of using an jet engined plane as maritime patrol and ASW platform. I know British used Nimrod, but I always felt piston engine is more fuel efficient and has more endurance than jet engine.


In light of the recent Hudson River incident where a twin-engine Airbus didn't agree with a flock of birds,
I too wonder the validity (and safety) of using a twin engine 737-sized airframe down near the ocean surface...too many birds in some areas.
But then again, one has to take into effect how many years twin turbofan aircraft have operated in those lower altitudes with how many hundreds of thousands of combined flight hours without catastrophic loss to birdstrikes.
 
I always wondered if the noise from turboprops was heard early enough by the birds at a distance to shoo them away from an aircraft's flight path...
 
If two engines aren't your fancy (not mine, not for something that big, down that low),
 
One of the more recent Defense Technology International magazines had a good article on the aircraft. I was surprised its proposed production radar suite will be a more capable system than that proposed by Boeing for the P-8...
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd    Nichevo   1/30/2009 6:18:43 AM
 Nichevo:
 
These are essentially mods to an a/c series the armed forces know intimately.  You think this is harder than building Looking Glass or ABL?  We do this stuff all the damn time!  Quit whining!
 
I dunno, maybe Good Enough payload and flex is good enough.  Play with it.  I bet if we were motivated (e.g., losing a war) we'd beat your proposed schedule by a fair amount. B-7x7G will be better than B-7x7A, as always.  The perfect is the enemy of the good.


Turning a cargo plane that is supposed to normally operate with it's fuselage pressured into a bomber with an unpressurized fuselage and pressurized cockpit is not a modification!  The loads and stresses are radically different and the design must be modified to compensate.
 
Looking Glass and ABL are basically handcrafted limited production designs, quite a bit more expensive than you seem to believe, and keep the fuselage pretty much intact and pressurized.  They are NOT bombers.
 
As for motivation and schedule, when you are losing a war you tend to be less concerned about your planes buckling in mid air, or the nose or tail falling off, after a few missions.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy