Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US Navy’s New Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft May Be Canceled
Tha Nav Log ^ | 1/28/05

Posted on 01/28/2005 8:20:22 AM PST by pabianice

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last

1 posted on 01/28/2005 8:20:23 AM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pabianice
That is potentially good news to Lockheed Martin, which lost the MMA bid to Boeing, but hardly for the US.

Let's not forget what's good for U.S. taxpayers and U.S. citizens who value their freedom. It's probably best if we hold our defense spending to current levels of GDP, and it's probably best if we spend it in the best way to fight the war on terrorism.

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.

2 posted on 01/28/2005 8:26:31 AM PST by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Good.
Revamp the Charlies, if you must, but B-TacMods were hauling the mail before gall-blame computerized Charlies showed up, and the Charlies have been doing an adequate job since.
Lower take-off weight? So what? They carried enough fuel and bouys to stay up until the crew became zombies.

Dumb idea, anyway, a twin-engined jet loitering around at 1,500 feet...

3 posted on 01/28/2005 8:29:40 AM PST by grobdriver (Let the embeds check the bodies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

What's wrong with buying new P-3s? A turboprop is a better plane for the mission anyway.


4 posted on 01/28/2005 8:30:33 AM PST by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark

F22 cuts are horrific. Military spending spending is only 3.8 %
of GDP. Iraq should start pay for its own defense. Period.

This is also different from the WOT.

The military is one of the few areas of government that drive innovaion (computer, internet, space program etc). Cutting our military not only affects our security, but also our competiviness economically.


5 posted on 01/28/2005 8:33:30 AM PST by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fooman

Thanks for your comments. I know lots of freepers feel we should boost defense spending. I'm one of those who doesn't favor much of a boost (nor do I favor cuts in our current level of 3-4% of GDP). This level of spending forces hard choices about which programs to build and which to cut -- I'm glad we're making the hard choices, though I know it's not always pleasant for those involved in the process.


6 posted on 01/28/2005 8:39:15 AM PST by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
This makes me nervous.The sub-hunting S-3 is history,the P-3 is old and overworked. The Chinese are going to build a sub fleet.There are plenty of Russian subs available for Third World countries to acquire.

Why are we reducing our sub hunting capabilities? We can't rely on DD's and carrier based helos alone.

7 posted on 01/28/2005 8:43:33 AM PST by oldsalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark
Thanks for your comments. I know lots of freepers feel we should boost defense spending. I'm one of those who doesn't favor much of a boost (nor do I favor cuts in our current level of 3-4% of GDP). This level of spending forces hard choices about which programs to build and which to cut -- I'm glad we're making the hard choices, though I know it's not always pleasant for those involved in the process.

In theory I agree with you. But our current strategic situation has a current enemy, against whom we must fight an assymetric war, and a probably future enemy (China), against whom we must be prepared to fight a high-technology but much more conventional war. Currently, we are sacrificing the later for the former. The result will be a much higher probability of war with China. I cannot justify NOT preparing for both.

We need to spend the money. In the long run, it will be much cheaper to prepare for war against China and, as a result, not have to fight one.

8 posted on 01/28/2005 8:49:01 AM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark

We are not making hard choices. We are making PC ones. China is ready to grab Formosa and much Asia and we are not concerned.

The cuts need to come from social programs and a more efficient homeland security. For example, airport sceeners do not need to be federal employees- they need good background checks.


9 posted on 01/28/2005 8:50:33 AM PST by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker

*In the long run, it will be much cheaper to prepare for war against China and, as a result, not have to fight one.*


Tell that to FDR in the 1930s


10 posted on 01/28/2005 8:52:47 AM PST by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
There is in the US inventory no other long-range maritime patrol and stand-off attack aircraft.

If anyone knows, why couldn't C-130s be used for this role? They have to have the carrying capacity and range needed and I don't think we necessarily are talking about something outside of their performance envelope otherwise. So why not? If they need greater speed why not consider the C-17?

Wasn't there just a stink becuase the C-130 line was going to be shut down? Well, extend production and modify them for this role.

I'm sure there's a reason this won't work, but I can't see it.

11 posted on 01/28/2005 9:05:56 AM PST by Phsstpok ("When you don't know where you are, but you don't care, you're not lost, you're exploring.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

I flew on P-3c's for 4.5 years in the Navy, these are old aircraft. we had one in our inventory that was 20 years old in 1989 and as far as I know it's still in service. that's 36 years old. You can't compare the B-52's mission of flying in smooth air at 40,000 feet to the P3's mission of bouncing around for 12 hours at 500-1000 feet. It beats you up pretty good. These aircraft have had it. They're too dangerous to fly anymore and need to be replaced if the navy is going to continue with this mission. This is a safety issue. It's deliberately putting our servicemen in harmsway.


12 posted on 01/28/2005 9:20:37 AM PST by hiramknight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Your right, however the Marrietta, Ga. plant was shut down years ago. They don't make them anymore.


13 posted on 01/28/2005 9:22:31 AM PST by hiramknight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Phsstpok
If anyone knows, why couldn't C-130s be used for this role?

I was wondering the same thing. Seems to me that C-130's are used in some roles that might be similar to what the Navy needs (e.g. maritime search and rescue work with the U. S. Coast Guard, and weather recon with the Air Force). So couldn't the C-130 be adapted for Navy use?

14 posted on 01/28/2005 9:28:26 AM PST by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: hiramknight; Paleo Conservative
Your right, however the Marrietta, Ga. plant was shut down years ago. They don't make them anymore.

One untrue statement, one true one. First, the Marietta plant is still open, making the C-130J and the F-22. Second, the P-3 was never made in Marietta. It came out of the California factory. (And third, note proper spelling for Marietta.)

15 posted on 01/28/2005 9:35:56 AM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Phsstpok

I agree. Lockheed should have put forth the C-130 as its proposal against the B-737 put up by Boeing. It would require some modification (installing a bomb bay would be the main modification).


16 posted on 01/28/2005 9:40:18 AM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

And I was contemplating transferring from Boeing commercial to the MMA program when they announce openings for my job classification. I think I should wait.


17 posted on 01/28/2005 9:40:41 AM PST by NavyCanDo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hiramknight

Can a UAV of considerable size replace this mission?


18 posted on 01/28/2005 9:43:26 AM PST by Walkingfeather (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PAR35


Aircraft of the World
Main Variants History Operators Specifications Production More Info.
Back to Aircraft Types Index Page
Lockheed Martin P-3 Orion


US Navy P-3C Orion
(photo, US Navy)
Main Role: Land-based, long range, anti-submarine warfare patrol and anti-surface warfare aircraft
Country of Origin: USA Current Status: In Service, Out of Production


The basic airframe is adapted from the L-188 Electra commercial airliner and since its introduction in 1969, the P-3 Orion has undergone a series of configuration changes to implement improvements in a variety of mission and aircraft updates. These changes have been called "Updates". Update I was in 1975 and incorporated new data processing avionics software. Update II in 1977 included an infrared detection system, a sonobuoy reference system, the Harpoon anti-ship missile and 28-channel magnetic tape recorder/reproducer.
The TECHEVAL (Technical Evaluation) for Update III began in March 1981. Update III was enhanced by a Channel Expansion (CHEX) program; CHEX doubled the number of sonobuoy channels that can be processed. Testing and evaluation was completed in June 1988.
The ASW variants have a comprehensive suite of communications, navigation, acoustic and non-acoustic sensors, and data-processing equipment. The Orion's capability has been greatly increased during its operational life, IFF interrogator, LTN-72 INS, Doppler navigation radar, 360° search radar, MAD, AN/AQA-7 Direction Low-Frequency Analyzer and Ranging (DIFAR) system and chin mounted FLIR.
The Orion also has an internal weapons bay and ten external weapons stations for carrying a mix of ASW torpedoes, depth charges and AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles. There are three hard points outboard of the engines on each wing and four on the wing centre section. Each wing pylon can carry up to 500lb (227kg) while the middle pylons can carry 1,000lb (454kg) of stores. The internal weapons bay can accommodate a variety of depth charges and mines or up to eight lightweight ASW torpedoes. Sonobuoys can be launched from external pods or from a set of tubes located internally aft of the weapons bay. AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air and AGM-65F Maverick anti-ship missiles have been test launched from the P-3. The last Navy P-3C came off the production line at the Lockheed plant in April 1990.


Back to Top
Variants
Requirement Specification: Type Spec No.146
Manufacturers Designation: L-???


Development History:
Electra test bed YP3V-1 (later YP-3A) aerodynamic prototype, first flown 25 November 1959.
PV3-1/P-3A Initial production version with 4,500 shp T56-A-10W engines. First flight 30 March 1961; P3V-1 redesignated P-3A in 1962. No longer in USN service.
P-3B Production version with 4,910 shp T56-A-14 Engines; 144 built, 21 for export. First flight on 24 September 1965. Most remain in US Naval Reserve service.
P-3C Definitive production version for USN. First flight 18 September 1968.
P-3C Update I Improved avionics version of the P-3C. First aircraft delivered in January 1975. 31 built.
P-3C Update II Further improvements over Update I including a Sonobuoy Reference System (SRS). First aircraft delivered in August 1977. 44 built.
P-3C Update II.5 24 aircraft fitted with new navigational and comms. equipment.
P-3C Update III 50 new build aircraft delivered from 1984 to 1990.
P-3C Update IV Boeing programme for existing P-3s and Long Range Air ASW Capable Aircraft (LRAACA); canceled in the early 1990s. Technology revived in 1995 - 1996 proposal for use in retrofitted Nimrod MR aircraft for British Replacement Patrol Aircraft (RPMA).
Orion 2000 Newly built P-3 design from Lockheed Martin for British RMPA competition in 1995 1996.
Valkyrie RMPA offering refurbished P-3s.
ASUTTA Acoustic System Upgrade to ASW Aircraft (ASUTTA).
IPADS ASUTTA programme to be applied to US Naval Reserve P-3B.
P-3D Proposed variant with Allison 501-M80C engines developed for Iran prior to the revolution, but not produced. Designation later assigned to P-3s being built for South Korea for delivery in 1995.
P-3F Similar to the P-3C, but equipped for service with the Iranian Navy. 6 were delivered before the 1979 revolution.
P-3G Proposed upgrade with Allison 501-M80C engines and update IV avionics. Superseded by Lockheed candidate for LRAACA.
P-7 LRAACA Update IV avionics suite fitted to enlarged P-3 aircraft.
P-3H Proposed upgrade of P-3C with weapons bay enlarged for AGM-84 Harpoon missiles.
EP-3 Aires/EP-3 Batrack US Navy ELINT conversion of P-3A/B aircraft for USN, specialising in tactical signal intelligence. 10 EP-3Es were converted from P-3A aircraft and are the oldest airframes in the fleet.
EP-3E Aires II Conversion in Lieu of Production (CILOP) of 10 EP-3E Aires 1 and 2 EP-3B Batracks. EP-3C ELINT variant of kawasaki-built P-3C for JMSDF. Last of 8 delivered by mid-1990s.
NP-3 Japanese P-3s configured for flight checking of navigational aids.
RP-3A P-3 configured for Project Magnet, which mapped the Earth's magnetic field.
TP-3A P-3 aircrew training aircraft.
VP-3A US Navy VIP Transport variant.
UP-3A Similar to VP-3A, but used in utility role.
WP-3D US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather research aircraft.
Outlaw Hunter P-3C modified to support Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile (TASM). Aircraft can detect ships, establish their precise location, and maintain and predict track histories.
Australian P-3W 10 P-3B Update II aircraft delivered in 1978-1979 and 10 Update II.5 aircraft delivered in 1982-86.
1995 Australian P-3 Upgrade 18 aircraft upgraded under 1995 contract.
New Zealand P-3K/Rigel I/II/III 6 New Zealand P-3s updated under the 1981 Rigel I/II/II programmes.
Norway P-3N 2 P-3Bs upgraded to "P-3N" standard for coastal surveillance by the Norwegian Coast Guard.
Spanish P-3 modernisation 2 P-3As purchased in 1964 and 5 ex Norwegian AF aircraft bought in 1987 updated, with radar and sonar modification, addition of on-board signal processing and Infrared (IR) detection system.
Trap Shot Private study by Lockheed and General Dynamics to fit a P-3C with Advanced Air-to-Air Missiles (AAAM) in the early 1980s.
CP-140 Aurora Canadian maritime patrol aircraft using P-3 airframe and S-3A Viking avionics.
CP-140A Arcturus Stripped-down version of the CP-140 with ASW equipment deleted. Used for crew training and fishery patrols.



Back to Top
History
Key Dates:
1957 Lockheed proposes Electra to meet Navy requirement for land-based ASW aircraft.
May 1958 Research & Development contract awarded.
19 August 1958 First flight of YP3V-1, the third production Electra (188-1003)
25 November 1959 YP3V-1 (BuNo 148276) with 7 ft shorter fuselage and most of the planned avionics, makes first flight.
October 1960 First production contract awarded.
15 April 1961 First flight of the P3V-1.
15 April 1962 Trials began at NATC Patuxent River.
1962-63 P-3s participate in quarantine of Cuba.
1966 New Zealand becomes the first international customer.
November 1966 VP-9 and VP-26 take delivery of the first 'B' models.
18 September 1968 First flight of P-3C.
June 1969 First 'C' model delivered to VP-30
June 1969 First EP-3B in service with VQ-1
September 1969 First operational aircraft delivered to VP-56
1970 VP-49 Makes first overseas deployment of P-3C.
1975 Iran places order for 6 P-3F aircraft.
1975 VX-1 takes delivery of the first P-3C.
July 1976 Canada orders the CP-140.
September 1977 First 'Update IIs' delivered to VX-1
1978 Kawasaki Heavy Industries obtains license to build P-3 for Japan's maritime patrol needs. (90 airframes)
1981 Update II
May 1984 Update III begins service.
14 June 1984 Prototype AEW first flight.
1988 First P-3 AEW aircraft delivered to U.S. Customs Service.
17 April 1990 Last USN P-3C Update III delivered.
1990 Lockheed Corporation moves the P-3 assembly line to its Marietta, Georgia facility.
15 December 1990 Korea orders 8 P-3Cs to be built in Marietta.
3 November 1992 The first Marietta built Orion rolls out of final assembly.
12 December 1994 First flight of Marietta built P-3C.
3 October 1995 The first P-3C delivered to ROK Navy.



Back to Top
Operators
Military Operators
U.S. Navy (Approximately 30 Sqns/units)
Royal New Zealand Air Force (1 Sqn.)
Royal Australian Air Force (4 Sqns.)
Kongelige Norske Luftvorsvaret (Royal Norwegian Air Force) (1 Sqn.)
Ejercio del Aire (Spanish Air Force) (1 Sqn.)
Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (1 Wing)
Canadian Armed Forces (5 Sqns.)
Nihon Kaijyo Jieitai (Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force) (12 Kokutai)
Marineluchtvaartdienst (Royal Netherlands Navy) (2 Sqns.)
Forca Aerea Portuguesa (1 Sqn.)
Comandancia de la Aviacion Naval de Chile (1 Sqn.)
Royal Thai Navy (1 Sqn.)
Republic of Korea Navy (1 Sqn.)
Polimiko Naytiko/Polimiko Aeroporia (Greek Navy/Air Force) (1 Sqn.)
Pakistan Navy (1 Sqn.)
Comando de Aviacion Naval Argentina (1 Sqn.)
Government Agencies

US Customs Service P-3A, P-3AEW
US Forestry Service (leased) P-3A
NASA P-3B
NOAA WP-3D
Civilian Operators

Hawkins and Power P-3A fire bomber

Black Hills Aviation P-3A fire bomber

Aero Union P-3A fire bomber



Back to Top
Specifications
Lockheed Martin P-3C Orion
Crew: Ten or eleven
Dimensions: Length 116 ft 10 in (35.61 m); Height 33 ft 8½ in (10.29 m); Wing Span 99 ft 8 in (30.37 m); Wing Area 1,300 sq ft (120.77 sq m)
Engines: Four Allison T56-A-14 turboprops rated at 4,910 ehp (3661 ekW) each
Weights: Empty Equipped 61,491 lb (27,890 kg); Normal Take-off 135,000 lb (61,235 kg); Maximum Take-off 142,000 lb (64,410 kg)
Armament: Ten underwing hardpoints and an internal weapons bay forward of the wing for a Maximum Weapon Load 19,252 lb (8,733 kg) - comprising Mk 46 or Mk 50 torpedoes, depth bombs, B57 nuclear depth charges, AGM-84 Harpoon missiles or underwing rocket pods.
Performance: Maximum level speed 411 kts (473 mph, 761 kph) at 105,000 lb (47,625 kg) at 15,000 ft (4575 m), 380 kts (438 mph, 704 kph) at Max T/O weight at same height; Economical cruising speed 328 kts (378 mph, 608 kph); Patrol speed at 1,500 ft (457 m) 206 kt (237 mph, 381 kph); Maximum rate of climb at sea level 1,950 ft/min (594 m/min); Service ceiling 28,300 ft (8,625 m); Operational radius 1346 nm (1550 miles, 2494 km) with 3 hours on station; Ferry range 4,830 nm (5,562 mls, 8,950 km)



Back to Top
Production
Chief Designer: Not known
Design Office: Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, Burbank, CA (originally)

Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems Company (LMASC)
(LMASC, 86 South Cobb Drive, Marietta, GA 30063, USA. Formerly Lockheed Aircraft)
Version Quantity Assembly Location Time Period
YP3V-1 1 conv. Palmdale, CA May 1958-Nov 1959
P-3A 157 Palmdale, CA Oct 1960-mid 1965
P-3B 144 Palmdale, CA mid 1965-1969
P-3C 118 Palmdale, CA 1969-1975
P-3C Update I 31 Palmdale, CA 1975-1977
P-3C Update II 37 Palmdale, CA 1977-19??
P-3C Update II.5 24 Palmdale, CA 19??-1984
P-3C Update III 101 Palmdale, CA 1984-1990
P-3F 6 Palmdale, CA 1975-19??
CP-140 18 Palmdale, CA 1978-July 1981
CP-140A 3 Palmdale, CA 1989-Sept 1991
P-3C 8 Marietta, GA 1991-199?
Total: 647


Your right, most were built in Ca. but that line shut down before the MARIETTA plant which kicked out the last 8 before the line shut down. (I meant to say line not plant before) I did a google search. And my MARIETTA spelling was wrong. Thank you for correcting my ignorance. Allow me to correct yours.


19 posted on 01/28/2005 9:49:07 AM PST by hiramknight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

bump


20 posted on 01/28/2005 9:54:24 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson