Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Dissent Tech
Door Kickers
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

Old planes need love

P-3 Orion patrol planes, the workhorses of U.S. naval aviation, are begging to be put out to pasture. But with replacement a decade away, industry is working overtime to keep the old beasts alive.

The Orion, a modification of the Lockheed Electra propliner, is one of the most in-demand airplanes in the U.S. inventory. Old planes.jpgDesigned to hunt Soviet subs then modified for overland use after the Wall fell, the P-3 is prized for its efficiency, range and loiter time -- and for its seemingly limitless flexibility. Orion airframes have been packed with a bewildering array of electronics, from surveillance radars in rotating radomes (for the Customs Service's Airborne Early Warning models) to infrared and visible-light cameras (in the Navy's Anti-Surface Warface Improvement Program, or AIP, model) and sophisticated Signal Intelligence (SIGINT) receivers. It was a Navy SIGINT EP-3 that collided with a Chinese fighter in 2001 while spying on the Chinese navy. Over Iraq, Orions have been all but hijacked by the Marine Corps, which plants a colonel aboard and uses the Orions as command posts.

But overuse in the past decade resulted in 75 of the Navy's 225 Orions being deemed unsafe for flight and retired last year. The remaining planes have been subject to careful maintenance to keep them flying until their replacements -- the new P-8A, the Broad-Area Maritime Surveillance UAV and the Aerial Common Sensor -- are available in large numbers sometime around 2013. So desperate is the Navy for flyable Orions that is has begun upgrading five obsolescent Update II.5 versions to bolster the front-line fleet of 57 AIP Update IIIs.

At Lockheed Martin's Aircraft and Logistics Center in Greenville, S.C., a staff of 1,200 works at capacity to maintain and upgrade Navy P-3s while also modifying Orions for Canada, The Netherlands and (soon) India and Pakistan. Lockheed Martin spokespeople David Jewel and Trish Pagan say that the tired airframes are requiring more and more maintenance and that upgrades are taking longer too. At any given time, there are 18-20 P-3s at the facility, most of them American. Some stay for as long as six months.

Despite everything, P-3s are based on a very sturdy airframe and can fly practically forever if they're properly cared for, Jewel says. Proper care, he adds, might even mean new wings and new engines that would keep the old horses working for decades still. That just might become necessary if the ACS' recent problems aren't resolved and if the P-8 hits any snags.

--David Axe

Comments

nice to meet you

Posted by: cheap wow gold at April 14, 2008 01:24 AM


As a former U.S. Navy Aviation Anti-Submarine Warfare Operator Aircrewman on board P-3B Orions out of NAS Barbers Point Hawaii. I have to concur with the opinions expressed that the Navy has been making some mistakes. But a lot of them are more the U.S. Congresses fault than they are the U.S. Navy's!

The closing of excellent bases (NAS Moffett Field in California and NAS Barbers Point in Hawaii) and getting rid of the S-3 Viking (as in no more new Vikings) were all tragic mistakes instituted by an uniformed and "feel good legislation" oriented Congress. I have mixed emotions on the Viking, as it was never really effective close in to the fleet because of ELINT and ECM issues, and just flat too much noise in the water generated by several ships screws going at once, along with propulsion machinery noise and the like. Neither the P-3 or the Viking were effective at "Close" support of the fleet.

Where both aircraft shone was at long range open ocean patrol and ASW. When the ambient noise goes down, sonobouy effectiveness goes up, and both the S-3 and the P-3 were certain doom for both diesel and nuclear craft of the 60's, 70's and 80's.

But, since the 1990's the Navy has been slowly ignoring a growing trend. Magneto-hydro-dynamic propulsion (which Tom Clancy predicted in his novel, the Hunt for Red October), Fuel Cells, and "Hybrid" CODAG, CODAT and improved diesel boats are making it a VERY quiet world out there, and newer platforms will have to cover a lot more ground, since the bases NOW are further away from the action.

The P-3 had excellent loiter performance, and was a maritime patrol dream machine. But it was NEVER fast enough to get on station in a hurry and begin prosecution. The Navy relied on trailing U.S. subs following at close distances to blow away foreign subs in the worst case WWIII nuke scenario. The S-3's original mission was to serve as an "on-the-scene" ASW bird that could fly out from a carrier group and prosecute hostiles in a rapid manner. Helicopters have this problem (speed) in spades, and they are no replacement for the Viking. The P-3 was used to track first, so that assets could be moved into place for prosecution, and THEN, the P-3 or other aircraft would attack the enemy when a certain position was confirmed.

The P-3 had one major problem by my perception, and that was room on board. We frequently ran out of sonobouys on station simply because we had expended everything in the limited rack space. Also, when a squadron goes on deployment, the bird you fly out to the Phillipines on is probably how all of your gear (personal or military, parts or bicycles) is going to get there with you. On extended detachments in wierd places, you had to even bring your own food and water. There was never enough cargo capacity on-board.

Also, crew accomodations for really long missions was not so hot. Only two of the 13 people on board could "rack out" comfortably and get any sleep... that is, if you can sleep with about 83db of amient turbo-prop noise, and temperatures in the low 40's to keep the electronic gear from smoking! The new bird has both improved accomodations, AND a ton of expansion and cargo space. The new rotating sonbouy launchers carry a HECK of a lot more bouys than we ever went out with.

There is very little difference between a turboprop, and a turbofan engine. The 737-800 engines are well known for their fuel frugality, and with a 41,000 foot service ceiling, and .82mach top speed (400kt loiter!), it gets places with good economy, and in a hurry! These jets are famous for their friendly handling and ease of pilot operation. And a re-fueling probe means mission durations are only limited by the endurance of the crew.

There are lots of other great features of this aircraft, not the least of which is Boeing's reputation for reliability. Think of all of those 707s still in service as cargo planes after 50 years... How about the B-52?

I think the tax payers are getting their money's worth in this case. The avionics were good when I was in, God only knows how good the new acoustic and non-acoustic package is now! I look forward to their roll-out in 2012 or 2013... and Hope I get to walk through one or talk to some current crewman after training to see what they think.

Byron McKay

Posted by: Byron McKay at October 6, 2007 02:09 AM


I find it unlikely that the P-8 will be built in significant numbers.

http://navlog.org/budget_churn.html

Posted by: CDR K.B. Sherman (Ret.) at May 30, 2007 08:48 AM


For a short period of time, I was a Production Test Pilot, NAVAIRSYSCOM,REP, BURBANK and Engineering Officer.I had also been assigned to two ASW squadrons. I could never see a 737 as an ASW airframe. Why the Navy did not keep the Orion airframe kept instead of the 737 I will never understand.

Lockheed has all of the ASW experience the Boeing will need years to come up with.

Posted by: CDR. Alex, (Ret) at March 8, 2007 06:08 PM


I think the U.S.Navy is making a very big mistake retireing the P-3C up dates! The 737-700 is a nice passenger plane, but as far as being an ASW aircraft, it fall's short of the ASW mission! It's to big.,which it will make it a fine target for a SAM, or bogie! It's fuel consumption will probably be three times that of the P-3C. I just think the Navy is making a big mistake with the P-8 Posident! They should stick with the P-3C Up dates. If it isn't broke, Don't fix it!!! Bigger isn't always better! I am a tax payer just like all you other guys & gals, and I think the P-8 is a waste of tax payers money,Period!

I think the U.S.Navy could go to Lockheed, and tell them what modifications they want on the P-3, and I'm sure Lockheed could make it so. They could come out with a brand new "D" model of the P-3., instead of an Update IV! Retire all the old P-3's, and buy all new P-3's, with all new gear. I'm sure it will cost a whole lot less than buying a fleet of new 737's.

Any comments are welcome on this posting
Sincerely
William

Posted by: William at January 2, 2007 07:15 PM


Good Afternoon Sean,

I think we are drifting off subject here, Noah I don't think likes that, but I do agree with your observations regarding ASW. Along with mine and counter mine warfare the U.S. Navy has let it leadership slip.

The fact that at least seventy five countries now have a submarine force, are looking to have one or like in the cases of India Brazil, Pakistan and Iran are looking to get into the submarine construction business, ASW should have a higher priority for the U.S.N.

The development in Iraq and Afghanistan of IED's should also give a heads up the the U.S. Navy that the technology being developed by the terrorist in this area could be adapted with out much effort to the maritime battlespace. This should serve as a "U.S.S. Stark" reality check.

Perhaps in the near future there sublects will be put up for dicussion on Defense Tech.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at November 27, 2005 03:35 PM


The P-3C with all its updates has become a jack of all trades and a master of many. However, in the ASW community, the Navy has thrown away as valueable an asset in the S-3. With subs becomming quieter/stealthy,and many being purchased by nations not friendly to the United States, envision this, a Super Carrier burning/listing after being successfully attacked by a quiet diesel AIP enemy submarine. Will the Admirals of Navy Air then ask themselves, why did we rely on SH-60's and not update or purchase a new ASW carrier airframe? Will congress ask why the Navy didn't build another class of sub hunting Destroyers or Frigates?

Posted by: Sean Dinneen at November 26, 2005 12:01 PM


Good Morning David,

I'm in some what of agreement with you on the ASW mission, although the Navy might not be in agreement with us.

If I recall with in the Carrier Battle Group the airborne ASW platform is now the SH-60 since the S-3 has been retired.

Although at the end the S-3 was used mostly as an Armed Maritime Patrol platform it was still a robust long range ASW platform that the carrier Battle Group had at it's disposal, that I hope will not in the future be missed.

The Navy's lead research platform for ASW, the SS Dolphin which has been out of service since an at sea accident since 2002 is just now, like in today going back into service. It appears that the U.S.N. has some catching up to do on the ASW learning curve.

With the U.S.Navy now dividing up the world in thirds Blue, Green and Brown waters and the fact that Diesel Submarine Technology is developing at a rapid rate with declineing costs the United States Navy might want to rethink it's ASW programs.

Again though I think the "Orion" is the poster child for replacement of manned airborn platforms with UAV's.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

PS The article on the SS Dolphin can be found in todays "San Diego Union Tribune" in the B section for anyone who is interested in this topic.

Posted by: Byron Skinner at November 25, 2005 02:26 PM


I cannot see a 737 as an ASW Platform. NO WAY. Does the DOD actually think this aircraft will be able to stay on station nearly as long as the P3?

Posted by: Dave G. at November 25, 2005 10:34 AM


Byron,

You're right. The Navy will replace some old P-3s with the new BAMS UAV, which might end up looking like a marinized Global Hawk. BAMS will do persistent surveillance. But the P-8 is still needed for ASW, since the mission requires extreme flexibility and a lot of decision-making that even the most sophisticated UAVs are incapable of.

Posted by: David Axe at November 24, 2005 02:56 PM


Good Morning David and all,

The P-3 Orion seems to be a good platform to be replaced by an UAV. The air frame is getting old and well used, high maintence requirements and in all the P-3's configurations a rather large crew is required who have to fly long, boring and tedious missions. As well as sometimes being dangerious as we saw with the capture of a PE-3 Orion a few years ago by China.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at November 24, 2005 02:23 PM


This article brings back memories of the time I spent in the Navy Reserve as a powerplant mechanic working primarily on P-3 aircraft. As far as spying is concerned, here's what I have to say: Call it anything you want, but the fact is the ability of the U.S. to monitor other nations' military capabilities through the use of platforms such as the P-3 is what gives us the edge. I have no doubt that countries like China are trying to advance their military capabilities by whatever means they can. History repeats itself. Let's not forget what happened in World Wars I & II.

Posted by: Steve Cruz at November 24, 2005 12:43 PM


The dutch P3 fleet has been sold to Germany rather cheaply because of budget cuts. Only the germans and the dutch defense secretary seem to be sastisfied with this deal, by the way.

Posted by: fer at November 24, 2005 05:34 AM


it would seems that spying denotes clandestined and covert actions, while openly gathering intelligence is questionable its far from spying

Posted by: bill at November 24, 2005 04:29 AM


Aaron,

Consider, for a moment, how Americans would react if China sent patrol planes into international waters off San Diego. Legal, yes. Acceptable, no. I'm not saying that the Navy is wrong to put patrol planes into the air near China. I'm just saying ... it's spying.

Lucky us, China doesn't have the ability to patrol distant waters. Because we do, to a far greater extent than any other nation, we must be sensitive to international perceptions.

Posted by: David Axe at November 24, 2005 01:23 AM


"while spying on the Chinese navy"
excuse me? spying? thats what the communists called it. of course that this was a routine observation flight by a clearly marked US military aircraft while in international waters makes this not spying.
There's a difference. spys can get the death penalty. if that happened to US military personel, it would be an act of war.

Posted by: Aaron at November 23, 2005 08:37 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.