WT Forums

<b>Star-Telegram: Boeing Secures Navy Contract </b>(Posted: Tuesday, June 15, 2004)
[Fort Worth Star-Telegram, June 15, 2004]

By Bob Cox
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

Boeing won a Navy competition Monday to develop a new generation of submarine-hunting patrol planes, beating out Lockheed Martin for the $3.9 billion initial contract.

The decision is a blow to Dallas-based Vought Aircraft Industries, which would have manufactured the wings and fuselage for a new version of Lockheed's vintage P-3 Orion sub-hunters.

Navy officials announced Monday that they had chosen Boeing's proposal to modify its 737 jetliner to carry highly sophisticated electronic submarine detection and tracking systems and anti-submarine weapons.

Some analysts had suggested that Lockheed might have an edge because it had proposed building all-new versions of the P-3 that would have been outfitted with modern engines, aircraft control systems and the high-tech surveillance and weapons systems.

"Lockheed Martin is obviously disappointed and surprised by the U.S. Navy's decision," spokesman Peter Simmons said. "We believe our solution met or exceeded all the specified key performance parameters and offered the best value to the Navy."

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, based in Fort Worth, was the division bidding on the project. The aircraft would have been built at the company's plant in Marietta, Ga., and would have had little or no impact in Fort Worth.

Simmons said Lockheed officials "are anxious to get a full debrief to better understand the basis for the Navy's decision."

A senior Boeing official hailed the decision. "As soon as the first 737 MMA aircraft are delivered to the Navy, our nation's naval forces will have a dramatic increase in capability and reliability to take them well into the 21st century," said Jim Albaugh, president and chief executive of Boeing Integrated Defense Systems.

The Navy plans to buy up to 109 of the new planes, known as the Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft, for an estimated $15 billion.

Lockheed's bid was perceived by some observers as the lower-cost, less technically risky proposition. But even a new version of the turboprop P-3, a design that dates back four decades, may not have appealed to key Navy officials.

"There is a faction in the Navy that really wants jets for the speed and the huge support base for it out there," said aerospace analyst Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group in Fairfax, Va. By using a plane based on the popular Boeing 737 airliner, he said, the Navy will find it easier to maintain and repair the planes anywhere in the world.

Vought officials could not be reached to comment. The company has no significant P-3 work at this time but had been selected by Lockheed to build the major structures for the new plane.

Vought could still end up with some P-3 work. Lockheed has been courting other countries with a plan for a major modification of the P-3, including new wings that Vought would build. The P-3 is used by numerous countries worldwide.

Lockheed will continue to market its P-3 upgrade plans to other countries, Simmons said.

Funding for the new Boeing plane remains an issue, Aboulafia said. The $3.9 billion in development money for seven prototypes through 2009 is probably reasonably secure, but longer-term funds could be hard to come by, especially if there are cost overruns or technical problems.

If that were to happen, Aboulafia said, the Navy might be forced into significant overhauls of its existing planes. Lockheed, Aboulafia said, "probably shouldn't throw away those P-3 upgrade brochures just yet."

The Navy operates about 223 P-3s, many of which are already slated to come to North Texas for overhauls and upgrades.

L-3 Communications' Integrated Systems division in Greenville on Monday delivered the first of what it hopes will be many overhauled P-3s to the Navy. The company has one contract for 16 planes and has received a second, $48 million contract for additional planes.

L-3's upgrade program isn't as extensive as the one proposed by Lockheed, but it does include refurbishing and replacement of structural aircraft components. Like Lockheed, it is courting P-3 customers around the world for additional upgrade business.



THE CRAPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"It may be crap to you, but it's bread and butter to us"

_________________
????

I'm not up on anti-sub work, but how would their loiter times compare? And I hope Boeing is making new airframes for them...the last 737 I took to D.C. on TDY, well, I think I'd rather fly the P-3!

"Live every day like it's the last, 'cause one day you're gonna be right!" Ray Charles

_________________
\"Those who hammer their guns into plows
will plow for those who do not.\"
- Thomas Jefferson

Even though it was a local project, I'm not up on the requirements or capabilities either. Based on previous prejudice...im sorry, knowledge, I would expect the tuboprop to have about twice the loiter for the same size aircraft. I went looking for Boeing performance predictions for their MMA proposal and found nothing. Just a guess, but I was thinking the 737 derivative would have about 5 hrs on station vs. the Orion 21 10 hrs. The jet would be operating at higher altitudes and speeds so maybe they cover the same patrol area anyway. The big selling point (confidentially) for the jet is crew comfort. If I was on the proposal evaluation team I would try and make the jet look good. I really think the services don't want to be flying props in the 21st century. It's hard to believe Boeing could deliver the 737 derivative faster and cheaper than Lockheed could do the P-3 derivative, but hey, it's "name that tune" time. I'm sure the Lockheed management are remembering the P-7 difficulties and don't want to low ball. On the other hand, Boeing should be remembering their own difficulties with the C-130 avionics modernization they lost their shirt on. Well, business is business. I better get back to work.

THE CRAPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"The F-22...It's the poo"

_________________
????

A Good Friend of mine was a TACCO Flight Officer on the P-3, He may be interested in adding his comments. I forwarded his thread to him.

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

Hi folks, this is my first Post here, Mr Mudd sent me this thread, so I will throw in some thoughts about this.

I flew P-3C UII and UII.5's as a Naval Flight Officer from 1990-1994. During this time I participated in ASW, ASUW, Anti Drug ops in both regular Squadron aircraft and some specially modded P-3's.

Here are my experiences:
During Desert Storm I, I flew numerous flights doing Red Sea surveillance and forwarding interesting contacts the Battle Group. Now here is a dedicated Maritime Patrol Aircraft...know how we communicated with the civilian ships we would quiz? We would be issued a handheld Marine Band VHF...Also during this Time of war (we were flying out of Jedda, Saudi Arabia) we were not permitted live weapons or even the use of chaff and flares (Despite drawing Combat Time for these flights). Guess what we used for positioning? A handheld GPS that I would hold up to the NAVCOM's window to check our system position that was a combination of Omega and LTN 72 INS's. A couple years later in Panama doing Anti Drug ops, we got tasked to do a unexpected SAR, VHF marine radios were not standard issue, good thing I started flying with a personal Marine Band VHF because the Det Center did not have one to use/issue. They borrowed my radio for the follow on flights for that event.

Early in Desert Storm I, our squadron (on the home cycle) did some testing with Tank/SCUD busting at the ranges on the west coast. The idea was the long loiter time and ISAR radar to provide cuing for the A-10's and F-16's in a desert environment.

This mission evolved as the ASW threat waned with the fall of the Soviet Union. The P-3 Community scrambled for job and mission security as RIF's (Reduction In Force) came about, numerous Squadrons and a few bases were shut down. The P-3 then got the Maverick as a band aid mod, the controls and displays were literally attached in the flight station with hose clamps and temporary mounts. The P-3 Community took note of Desert Storm I and how they were used (no weapons), and during the Bosnia conflict P-3's were finally granted permission to carry live weapons during surveillance missions, a loadout of 2 Mavericks, 2 Harpoons, two MK 20's and a couple of torps was not uncommon for each patrol. I believe SLAM's added to the weapon inventory of the P-3 (just after I got out of the Navy) were taken and used on few occasions in Bosnia.

Anti-Drug ops and imaging surveillance became an important mission for the P-3 as submarine targets became few. The loiter and slow speed characteristics of the P-3 was used with both air contacts and "Stealth Boats" used for drug running. On-station times to monitor contacts of interest to allow other assets to intercept the bad guys was the strong point of the P-3. We could shut down two engines (usually #1 and possibly #4) to increase our endurance (try that with a 737, asymmetrical thrust shutting one down). We carried three pilots and two Flight engineers and had bunks aboard were the off guys could rest. A Cessna could lean out and try to outlast us, but during our Dets we did not come across one successfully outlasted us.

Back to ASW, the biggest threat when I was getting out was the little guys Diesel Fleet, short ranges and tough targets. Our gear was old and we could only track 16 bouys at a time (The update III was far superior to us in that respect, however I never had the opportunity to fly those platforms). How well can the 737 prosecute a sub contact at low level? Turboprops are a bit more effiecent at low altitude I believe.

My Point? Well this platform needs to do it all, personally I think the 737 may be good for high altitude ASW or optical distance surveillance but I have my doubts for low Altitude ASW (which would be how you would need to prosecute a Diesel Sub Threat), How well can a 737 loiter with a leaned out Cessna carrying Drugs? The fleets old P-3's have a survivability mod with foam in the fuel tanks and Chaff/Flare systems, these are necessary and would need to included in the new 737. I have about 30 hours in the USAF T-43 (Naval Air Training Unit) and the 737 certainly has room for the various acoustic and non acoustic stations and associated equipment racks, certainly a bomb bay can be integrated as well as required wing stations.

I believe the 737 can do most but not all the current P-3's do, I would rather see the P-7 LRAACCA reborn, or a new design.

Whatever replaces the Fleets current P-3 aircraft need to be state of the art. The equipment required onboard commercial ships now NEEDS to be integrated to the Maritime Patrol Plane's Standard equipment. AIS is required on merchant ships these days do to ISPS requirements (9/11 Ship and Port Security requirements), this is Automatic Identification System, with this unit from my ships radar I have available the from a transponder the Ships Name, Callsign, Position, Course, and Speed of any Radar Contact within range of my radar. Imagine this integrated into the next Gen P-3. Those Red Sea missions would be a pure joy with little radio traffic, a few sweeps of the aircrafts radar, screenshot, and VID (Visual ID) of the ship to collaborate the transponder info...piece of cake. Now add the ability of Data Link to include this AIS info to be forwarded to the battle group, and the surface picture is significantly enhanced...O yeah and include a couple built in Marine Band VHF radios with multi sourced DGPS (Like our Drillship, we have 3 different sources of Differential GPS corrections, this insures if one goes down we have other sources for getting a correct position)...

Cheers
Beer


<img src="http://www.retrorelics.net/jim/Boards/CAFCNASig.jpg" border=0>

Edited by - Beer on Jun 29 2004 12:03 PM

Hey Beer.

Thanx for droping buy and sharing your first hand experiences with us. Mucho Appreciando.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"

Ronald Reagan

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Even though it was a local project,THE CRAPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"The F-22...It's the poo"
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>Hey Stress, are you out of Ft.Worth?

You look as lost as a bastard child on Fathers day.

_________________
\"One of you is gonna fall and die, and I'm not cleaning it up\"

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Hey Stress, are you out of Ft.Worth?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


Marietta, GA

THE CRAPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"The F-22...It's the poo"

_________________
????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Hey Stress, are you out of Ft.Worth?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


Marietta, GA

THE CRAPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"The F-22...It's the poo"
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>Ok, when you said local I thought you were refering to the Star Telegram. I didn't think you were from around here, but that confused me.

You look as lost as a bastard child on Fathers day.

_________________
\"One of you is gonna fall and die, and I'm not cleaning it up\"

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I read on another thread that the P-3C has done as long as 18 hours before and that a BBJ2 has done 15 hours before. If they just made it able to be refueled in the air then that wouldn't even be an issue. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I have a reference that says a P-3 record of 16.5 hours and 6500 miles range was certified in 1972, but that was a special version, not the ASW. I'm guessing typical missions with P-3s are less than half of that because they have less fuel, are carrying the weight of expendables, and land with more fuel reserve. Maybe Beer can shed some light on that. The Orion 21 was improved from the P-3 with different propulsion, sensors and comm gear. It would have done parts of the sea patrol job better than the jet. The jet is capable of things no turboprop can do too. As far as air refueling is concerned, it would be useful, of course, but it would be a mistake to rely on it for basic missions. Then they would need a large fleet of supporting tankers too.

THE CRAPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"The F-22...It's the poo"

_________________
????

Most of the missions when I was flying were 8-12 hours.
A "Fleet" P-3 can hold 60,000 pounds of fuel, general rule of thumb the first hour of flight the flight station figures 5000 pounds consumption first hour (T/O and climb out), then 4,000 pounds/hour afterwards, for loiter with #1 shut down they use about 3,000 pounds/hour. With this at no loiter and no reserve fuel requirements you are looking at 14.75 hours flight time, assuming you can use all the fuel and there is no reserve fuel needed.

The Pax River Test Squadron tested in flight refueling for P-3's, they were successful, however it was not intergrated into the fleet.

Most of our stuff is done down low, 200' to 2500'. A 737 was designed for passenger service not low altitude work, seems to me that the legs for a 737 are going to be much shorter for "Onstation Time" (Granted it can get there quicker). Anyone know how a 737 would do for fuel usage? Obviously they have thought all this out else there would be no contract.

Cheers
Beer


Biohazcentral Naval Sim Moderator/Editor
<img src="http://www.retrorelics.net/jim/Boards/CAFCNASig.jpg" border=0>

Edited by - Beer on Jul 01 2004 02:14 AM

Thanks Beer. I need numbers to calibrate my back of the envelope (half assed) opinions. The commercial 737-800 published numbers look like this:
Max TOGW 171200 lbs
Wt. Empty 91300 lbs
Fuel Capacity 45700 lbs
Cruise Speed 458 knots @ 33k ft
Max Range, zero payload 2900 nm (probably with standard reserves)
Max Range, Max Payload 2530 nm (ditto)
Cruise fuel flow 5720 lbs/hr

Rough endurance without reserves 7-8 hr
Maybe they could find room for more fuel but the gross weight probably can't go up more than 10% or so without fatigue life problems in the current wing. I don't have a clue what the payload is but I'm guessing it weighs 25000 lbs. With that, they could put in another 10000 lbs of fuel (total 56000) and get another couple of hours. The P-3 has a big fuel fraction (60000 lbs/ 140000 lbs = .43, wow). There are good reasons that old fashioned looking design is still operating today.


THE CRAPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"The F-22...It's the poo"

_________________
????