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. 
Designed 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
|
Old planes need love
« « Rapid Fire 11/23/05 | Rapid Fire 11/25/05 » »
Leave a Reply |
|
“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.
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.
it would seems that spying denotes clandestined and covert actions, while openly gathering intelligence is questionable its far from spying
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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?
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
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
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.
I find it unlikely that the P-8 will be built in significant numbers.
http://navlog.org/budget_churn.html