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 The first MMA was to have joined the fleet in 2012-2014, with the last P-3 to have been replaced by 2019.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?
Oh absolutely. I'm not interested in a healthy balance between air, ground and sea forces. They should cut out every program in the DoD so they can throw lots of money into my branch. That's what I care about -- it's all about me, me, me!
There is a great photo of the underside of the C-130J at post 19 on this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1331873/posts
There is plenty of room to put in a center line bomb bay between the pods holding the landing gear. The cargo bay is also tall enough to accomodate 8 ft vertical tubes for the buoys.
You are probably correct that an updated P-3 would be a better bet, but a 130 conversion would probably be more suitable than a 737.
I've actually been on the MMA 737 prototype. Spoke at length with the reps (take that for what it's worth) and they made a strong case for its performance at low level. Plus, with newer technology, you'd probably not have to fly at 300 feet to perform a mission. You could hold at 1000 and stay a bit further out of MANPADS range. Of possibly greater value was the increased reliability and lowered maintinence requirements.
Oh, yeah, one other thing about the 130...assuming you COULD put in a bomb bay and 150+ PSLT's, you'd still have to find somewhere to put the antennas. P-3's have their sono antennas (with which we "talk" to the buoys) on the bottom, as well, as that's where the signals come from.
Point is, MMA would have changed ALL our tactics, due to its increased flexibility and adaptibility. A "new" P-3 or modded C-130 would have been more of the same we've got now. A single MMA replaced three P-3's.
I think that that would be the greatest engineering challenge. How to maintain the structural integrity while cutting a long hole in the bottom of the plane. The 130 does have the advantage of having been over-engineered in the slide rule days, so there is a far greater margin to work with than there would be in an aircraft designed on a computer.
I recall that a big question for the 737 modification was the loiter time.
Maintenance was a nightmare when I was in during the late 80's. I can still remember the fiasco's trying to get the hanger queen to fmc status after weeks of part raping. It's got to be 10x worse for you guys. Thanks for what you do. From someone who's been there, it's a very difficult job.
The P3 turbo prop configuration is the most efficient airframe for the mission. It can be onsta within a few hours with it's cruise speed of nearly 400kts, but it can also loiter at very low airspeeds which is a requirement for surface interdiction and ASW. As far as I know the ASQ114 data package was replace years ago, and they did away with reel to reel before I got out in '91. The aircraft has been completely integrated since the late '60's. If the design aint broke, don't fix it. This could save quite a chunk of change in development costs.
"The P3 turbo prop configuration is the most efficient airframe for the mission."
It was good in its day, to be sure. But the high-bypass turbofans on the MMA match or better its loiter time. They also, due to their increased speed and lowered maintinence requirements, completely change the way you do business. With newer buoys and analysis systems now in the works, it's no longer required to spend all that time down low.
As well, the MMA eliminates about two crew members (the FE's), and its increased loadout of buoys and fuel means you can do a LOT more. Oh, it also has true inflight-refueling capability.
As I said in a previous post, it is thought that one MMA can replace three P-3's.
IRT loiter time, I believe the MMA was to have inflight refueling capability,
I doubt it. This would fit Boxer's plan, not Rummy. The MMA seems a natural fit to the Rumsfeld/Bush plan for lighter/faster. Unless they have something better on the books, UAV?
No doubt the MMA is a better all around aircraft for the job, but what's the happy medium? If the money's not there, and the program is to be cancelled, I'd rather see you flying in safe new proven airframes of old design, rather than bandaided up 25 year old ones. The Russians aren't making anymore superquiet subs, and the P3 avionic package is perfectly suited to track what's out there. The Chinese are years away from having the capability of the former Soviet Navy.
Transit speed
The Aerospatiale ATL3 Atlantique from America's oldest ally to the rescue 
Loister time.
DATs are becoming obsolete. DLTs are the favored format for large tape volumes.
That's correct. Faced by an enemy that's going to be throwing more cruise missiles than we can avoid means lots of our surface ships especially DDs are going to be hurting. We need the lookdown advantage of aircraft. Something pops a cruise missile from below and the aircraft nails it soon after.
The aircraft may keep some of the enemy forces from getting close enough to lob a cruise missile.
The ASW and MAP mission is all about options, as you know. A bus can carry more options than the bug.
There may be a better platform out there, but it ain't the one from this thread (IMHO).
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.