Posted on 01/28/2005 8:20:22 AM PST by pabianice
Word from at least one Washington suggests that the US Navy’s program to replace the P-3C – the Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft Program – is facing deep cuts or even cancellation in the back-draft from the $60 billion Pentagon budget cut through 2011. To help pay for the ongoing War on Terrorism, programs just cranking-up or not yet delivered are first to be chopped in favor of funding existing systems and combat organizations.
As noted elsewhere on The Nav Log, the Navy is not only cutting aircrew training but is looking at cuts in its DD(X), LCS, SSN-74, and LPD-17 programs – all to replace aging existing systems. USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67), which was to begin a two-year overhaul in 2006, may simply be decommissioned, while CV(X) appears also on hold and the Marine’s V-22 aircraft may have funding halved.
In June, 2004, Boeing won the initial $3.9 billion contract for the cost-plus-award-fee contract for the system development and demonstration (SDD) phase of the MMA acquisition program. The first MMA was to have joined the fleet in 2012-2014, with the last P-3 to have been replaced by 2019. The MMA Program – to replace the Navy’s remaining 150 P-3Cs with 108 new aircraft plus an undetermined number of Broad Area Maritime UAVs -- was then estimated to be worth as much as $44 billion in the next twenty years when foreign sales were also factored in. Overwork of the P-3 fleet since 1991 has resulted in its logging twice its designed airframe life, with the Navy having had to prematurely retire 40% of the fleet in the past year and a half.
The Air Force is facing a similarly bleak outlook, with F-22 procurement perhaps being halved.
Neither the Navy nor Boeing would respond at this time to inquiries about the MMA's future other than to say that there has been no official word regarding any changes to the program at this time and that it would be inappropriate to discuss anything that is "pre-decisional" in current budget changes at this time.
Killing the MMA Program would leave the Navy to figure-out how to extend the service life of the P-3 even further. There is in the US inventory no other long-range maritime patrol and stand-off attack aircraft. While the Navy does have mothballed a number of P-3B and P-3A aircraft, updating either to current P-3C Update III standards would hardly be inexpensive, and the P-3A and early P-3B are restricted to lower take-off weights. The first P-3C entered the fleet in 1969 and the most recent are not much more spry. Like the B-52H, all 104 of which were built between 1961 and 1962, and which has been again extended in service until 2040, the P-3C may find itself plugging along for as long a time. That is potentially good news to Lockheed Martin, which lost the MMA bid to Boeing, but hardly for the US.
Doomed by budget cuts?
As an old P-3 man, this is good and bad news. I dearly love the P-3, logged a bunch of hours in the old Bravo models. But, let's face it, we have some VERY old aircraft out there that we are asking our military folks to fly.
The B-52 is over 50 years old. It's a great aircraft and has proven itself as a superb warhorse, but at over 50, it's got to be a VERY tired warhorse.
The same is true of the P-3. The P-3 is over 40 years old. Again, another great aircraft, but it's technology and airframe are way outdated and long overdue for a replacement.
I understand budget issues and know that the military can't spend what it doesn't have. I just hate to think of the risk to the airmen of all service branches who have to risk their lives flying in some of these (wonderful) aging, decrepit machines. They were great in their day . . . but their day is come and gone.
It's time to put these aircraft out to pasture - to join some of the folks who used to fly them.
They've got that big honking door on the back, why does it need a bomb bay? Anything that couldn't be dropped out of the back door (or from an add on put in place of the rear ramp with a bomb bay in THAT) could be slung under the wing, couldnt it?
And think of the added capabilities of carrying over some of the weapons already in the AC-130? I bet a battle group commander would love to have that kind of fast resonse weapons platform to command. And they've proved that they can land and take off from aircraft carriers. That offers some interesting capabilities.
Yo! Rumsfeld! Over here! We got your budget problems solved too!
Item possibly of interest.
No. Too darn slow at about 260K. The P-3 cruises at about 340K and even so it takes four hours each way to and from onsta. MMA would have cruised at 525K.
Part of the MMA concept is the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) UAV, with about 50 having been planned to be operated from either shore or from an MMA, to do open ocean surveillance.
Note that the military is moving as quickly as possible to unmanned tactical aircraft (see Nav Log article).
But the P-3 design is excellent. It is basically a Lockheed Electra that has been shortened to increase payload weight and range. Why not restart the line and build one or two a month till all the current P-3s are replaced? That way the Navy would have a fleet of new planes, but there would be minimal design costs.
Thanks, that helps explain why the C-130 wasn't picked for this role. I knew there was some reason.
Tooling has been destroyed and would cost a great deal to recreate. Same reason no more C5's.
BTTT
But a line could be set up somewhere. The dies and tools still exist. I recall that the C-130 also has parts that are common with the Electra and P-3.
Tooling is gone.
When? I had read that Lockheed had proposed building brand new P-3s when the DOD was requesting bids for a P-3 replacement.
the orion is a cornocopia of sensor systems. it's complimented with equipment which allows it to detect, track and kill adversary subs, perform drug interdiction missions, maritime surface surveillance, airborne command and control etc. the fuselage is crammed with avionics from the flight deck all the way back to the MAD boom. certain things that are displayed by the equipment require a trained human element to decipher. I think a UAV application would be just as costly to design and develop.
The best option in my opinion is to reopen the lines and build new airframes and remove the existing equipment from the tired aircraft to compliment the new ones. most of the avionics are just a few years old even though some of the airframes are pushing 40.
Not even close to correct.
Cruising speed 350 kts.
Economical cruising speed 340 kts.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hercules/specs.html
Cruise speed for the P-3C 328 kts, or slightly slower than the cruise speed for the C-130J.
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/aircraft/air-p3.html
You did. I didn't know that they had moved the production to Georgia for the last few. In fact, I didn't know any of them were that new.
Thanks for the info.
Interesting. Thanks for the links.
Now the bad news. The C-130J is under consideration for being dropped because of continuing development and operational problems.
Has Cheney ever met new hardware that he liked? He killed the V-22 Osprey when it was new. Now we are reading about cuts in the C-130, F-22, B-737 conversion, the Boeing tanker deal; add in the self propelled 155 and the helocopter program (both of which needed cutting). Throw in the DD(X), LPD and CV(X), and the mothballing of the Kennedy, and you have to start wondering what he wants the troops to use to fight the next war.
But didn't the P3 get a recent kill against a Chinese fighter?
You know, claim that ALLLLLL these programs (all built in multiple Congressional districts) will be cut if the budget is cut, and let the Congresscritters sweat about it before "fixing" it.
Be that as it may, we need new aircraft, soonest. The P-3, while a great design, is way beyond its service life, and its airframe is a 1950's design, as are its engines. Much newer, better technology now exists, which is also more reliable and requires less man-hours of "spit n' bailin' wire" to maintain.
Those calling for a restart of the production line (which will NOT happen) are asking for designs to be used that do not incorporate the latest in technology, materials, and efficiency.
Likewise, the UAV idea is nowhere NEAR the level of technology so as to perform all the intricate work involved in modern ASW. You need trained operators to analyze, detect, and track contacts. You need trained, experienced TACCO's and NAV's to set up the tactics and make the calls. UAV's do not have that flexibility.
Bottom line is, the P-3 is costing more and more in maintinence per flight hour to operate. Many have had to be sent to the boneyard due to high-time on the airframes. Fatigue has already forced changes in the way the remaining ones are flown. The planes can scarcely take off anymore without something breaking. It's been years since I've taken off in one without seeing screws and bolts come off on the roll.
If it's not replaced and soon, a crew or two (13 good Sailors) will die. That's reality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.