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 The first MMA was to have joined the fleet in 2012-2014, with the last P-3 to have been replaced by 2019.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?
I wouldn't say it's deliberate...we've been screaming for new machines since I've been in. That's coming up on 13 years.
Maintinence is currently a nightmare. So is getting missions done, as the electronics and internal systems are beginning to break more and more.
Yo are correct, fooman.
As spending soars out of control, it is directed to domestic and global welfare and charity, and military spending is plunging. We are spending less today as a % of total outlays on Defense than we were when Clinton first entered office.
In the mean time, social welfare spending has increased from roughly 57% of total outlays to 65% of total outlays.
Military programs are being cut to fund the gigantic increase in social welfare. All this while terrorist nations acquire nuclear weapons.
The leadership of this nation is acting suicidal.
And it's STILL a 45+ year old design. There's much better, more reliable materials, engines, and methods of construction out there that we should be using.
bttt
They were much more enthusiastic about getting the contract, and the work they did proved that. Lockheed took a "ah, well, if we HAVE to..." approach.
Problem is, what then?
Let's say we spend all the dough to restart the lines...make new tooling, etc. Shall we then just build the same outdated airframes? Or should we start using new composite materials and engine technology? Obviously, we should use the newer gear and materials.
Then, what about the electronics? FAR better stuff, in both comms, ASW, camera, and ESM now exists and can be built completely integrated. Do we ignore the last 20 years of advancement and use the old stuff? Why use a mainframe computer of 1970's vintage, taking up 1/8th the available area, when we could use a laptop to run the whole show? Why use reel-to-reel recording media from the '60s when we could use DVD-ROM technology?
Eventually, you come to the point where you ARE building an entirely new aircraft. Which you should.
Yes, either Lockeed thought they had it in the bag, or they didn't want the contract, because they didn't pursue it nearly as hard as they should have. If they didn't want to go the P-3 route, they should have gone with a C-130 modification. On the other hand, they may have figured Boeing was going after the contract the same way they went after the aerial refueling contract, and it wasn't worth the expense to put together a full presentation.
This means tough choices and cuts in some cool, big-ticekt weapon systems like the F-22 and others. I'm glad the Bush admin. is willing to make the hard choices.
As if the only enemy in the world was a bunch of sheep-herders with AK-47s. China loves idiots like you and Bush.
Its not just new hardware, Cheney is reponsible for the deustruction of the F-14 tooling. The reason given was that by destroying the Tomcat, it would force congress to fund the next generation of fighters. I guess we won't get them either.
"I guess we won't get them either."
Gets even worse. The Presidential Helicopter contract was given to Britain over Sikorsky. Sikorsky believes it could be the end of them.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Maybe someone will argue that the C-130 is too big to perform the role efficiently -- I think I could believe that.
I'm not trying to be argumentative -- I hope I don't sound that way. Just thinking out loud. (And since I have some affection for the C-130, as a paratrooper, I wouldn't mind a reason to keep the production lines open).
The thing with the 130-vs-P-3 is not just ROOM, per se, because obviously the 130 has plenty. What it doesn't have is space UNDER the main deck in which to put a bank of PSLT's (Pressurized Sonobuoy Launch Tubes), which is where a P-3 carries its sonobuoy loadout. To be effective, an MPA aircraft needs to carry at LEAST 80 (and that's just to equal the P-3, the MMA carried far more). The tubes are mounted vertically, and are about 8 feet long and have to fire out the bottom. Now, look at a 130 again...where's the landing gear? Right...the bottom, which is also where you need to put the bomb bay. On an ORION, the gear is out on the wings, under the #2 and 3 engines. That leaves the bottom of the fuselage for the PSLT's and the bomb bay. The deck inside is flat, and thus leaves the space under it for those things, plus some electronics.
You need a bomb bay because the torpedoes need to be kept warm to function right. So does other ordinance we can carry. You can't carry them on the wings, like missiles.
Look again at the 130...the main deck in the cargo area is simply too low to allow the PSLT's to be installed correctly to function right. The aft section is all cargo door, so no help there.
Also, like I said, it's not manueverable enough. ASW and marittime patrol ops require hard turns at LOOOWWWW altitude, often in stormy, rotten weather. 130's aren't made for that kind of abuse. It rolls slower and turns slower than an ORION.
You could probably, with a LOT of design work and metal-bending, work a 130 to carry the loads, but then you add weight, which further degrades the agility. Plus, you've basically created a new airplane anyway. In any case, with the electronics and systems getting smaller, you now have lots of wasted internal space.
Hope that helps. I've got nothing in particular against the 130...it's a great airplane with an outstanding history of service. It's just not what you need for ASW. Believe me, if it was, it'd be used for it.
Cool! Thanks for the good information. That's what I love about FR.
Ping. This MIGHT be bad news, especially for me and me lads.
This is what needs to be cut.
August 2004
Navy Will Build Electromagnetic Gun Test Site
by Joe Pappalardo
The U.S. Navy is preparing to break ground on a program dedicated to testing the science behind electromagnetic rail guns.
The Navy will begin the construction of a new building devoted to the project this summer at the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Dahlgren, Va.
The Navy said it hopes it can develop an electromagnetic rail gun by 2010, and possibly deploy it aboard the electric-powered DD-X destroyer. Rail guns require a pulse power system to get instant electrical charges needed to accelerate projectiles to hypersonic velocities. Its rapid flight time and 200-kilometer range make these guns a tempting option for future naval weapons.
Researchers at Dahlgren will be studying the power supply, pulse forming networks and the rails themselves, said Naval Sea Systems Command spokesman David Caskey.
“The basic physics have been around for 80 years,” he said. “I think things opened up when the Navy decided their next generation ship would be electric.”
If the EM gun works as promised, it would add considerable firepower to the DD-X, which already is being designed with two 155 mm guns that fire GPS-guided shells out to about 100 kilometers, half the expected range of an EM gun.
Researchers figure that the power requirements associated with electromagnetic weapons would be easier to handle on an electric-powered ship.
Advances in alternating current power systems have made generators more compact. According to Lt. Cmdr. David Allen Adams, a pulse power system needed to support a 250-nautical mile rail gun could fit into existing 5-inch gun mounts. In a recent article published by the U.S. Naval Institute, Adams wrote that electromagnetic guns are projected to have low firing rates, hovering at about six shots a minute. However, the lower flight times and massive range—two minutes for payload to reach 100 miles—makes up for that deficit.
Another benefit of EM guns is that they do not require explosive warheads, reducing shipboard hazards.
“The projectile is basically going into space,” Caskey said. “It could really change the way you look at ballistics.”
You're kidding...
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.