During the next several weeks, U.S. Navy officials will be reviewing
proposed strategies for upgrading, or possibly replacing, the service’s
maritime patrol aircraft fleet.
After years of internal Navy deliberations and various efforts
to refurbish and modernize the fleet of land-based patrol aircraft,
specifically the P-3 Orion, service officials believe they must
now make a decision on whether the bulk of the dollars allocated
to P-3 modernization will be spent on extending the life of the
current fleet or on buying new platforms.
The Navy first awarded Lockheed a contract to develop the P-3 Orion—derived
from the company’s Electra airliner—in February 1959.
The P-3 entered the inventory in July 1962. It became the Navy’s
only land-based antisubmarine warfare aircraft and, after the end
of the Cold War, took on other missions, such as anti-surface warfare
and land attack.
The P-3C is the only model now in active service. The last Orion
came off the production line in April 1990.
The Navy currently owns 228 P-3Cs and 11 EP-3 Aries, which serve
as signals intelligence reconnaissance platforms. Some aircraft
will approach the end of their useful life in fiscal year 2002,
said Navy officials. But other P-3s still have considerable life
left. For the entire fleet, the average age is more than 20 years.
According to the Navy, a P-3 Orion costs $36 million. But any replacement
aircraft would come with a much higher price tag, said an industry
consultant.
To understand the Navy’s plans to modernize the P-3, one
must realize there are currently several different programs dealing
with “inventory sustainment,” explained Capt. George
C. Hill, Navy program manager for maritime patrol aircraft.
One of those efforts is called the “sustained readiness program,”
(SRP), under which 13 P-3s were re-manufactured by the Raytheon
Company’s aircraft integration division in Greenville, Texas.
When the SRP contract was awarded in 1994, it was supposed to cover
32 airplanes. The work involved replacing, upgrading, and refurbishing
the fuselage, wings, spar caps, flaps and empennage, replacing control
cables and portions of the avionics and electrical wiring.
Raytheon found that there was more corrosion-related damage than
had been expected, explained Hill. Because it was a fixed-price
contract, Raytheon concluded that the additional damage could not
be repaired for the previously established cost. So the Navy and
the company mutually agreed to restructure the contract, said Hill.
The company will complete the work on 13 aircraft only, instead
of 32. The last one will be delivered to the Navy in January 2001,
Hill said.
Corrosion is a common problem in the fleet because P-3s operate
over ocean water. The aluminum used in the P-3 is the same type
that was used in the B-29 bombers of World War II. These older materials
are more susceptible to corrosion than those used on newer generations
of aircraft.
The P-3s that did not receive the SRP upgrade are undergoing a
“service life assessment program,” or SLAP, said Hill.
The SLAP, which began in 1996, involves a full-scale fatigue test
conducted at a Lockheed Martin facility in Marietta, Ga. The work
will continue for two more years.
The Navy, meanwhile, issued a solicitation in early October, seeking
industry proposals for a “service life extension program”
(SLEP), that would begin in 2002. “The plan always was to
merge SRP into a SLEP program in fiscal year 2002,” said Hill.
Industry proposals will be due in April 2001. A contractor is scheduled
to be selected next summer, and the work would begin in 2002.
The goals for the SLEP are to extend the usefulness of the airframe
by one entire lifetime (about 24,000 hours), upgrade the aircraft
material condition and improve its reliability by replacing some
of the subsystems.
A separate project involves Lockheed Martin Naval Electronics &
Surveillance Systems, which received a contract in 1994 for the
so-called anti-surface warfare improvement program (AIP). This effort
modernizes the mission systems, providing avionics improvements
in non-acoustic sensors, communications, display and control systems.
These systems, said Hill, help make the P-3 more valuable as a precision
attack platform and as a reconnaissance vehicle in littoral areas.
The company recently delivered the 28th AIP aircraft to the Navy.
According to Hill, there is enough funding to upgrade 57 aircraft
under the AIP, through fiscal year 2001.
One of the new systems in the AIP version of the P-3 is an advanced
synthetic aperture radar (SAR), which works both over land and over
water. In its SAR mode, it can be used for ground mapping. In its
inverse SAR mode, it can image ships at sea. It has no air-to-air
capability. The AIP also includes an electro-optical sensor—an
advanced imaging multi-spectral system—which provides optical
and infrared detection. Those systems allow the P-3 crews to collect
target information and other intelligence, and to send the data
to the battle group or theater commander.
When the Navy decides on a P-3 replacement, it is still not clear
whether it will keep the AIP mission system or develop a new one.
“It’s up to the Navy to decide whether to go with AIP
or new mission system,” said Jeff Parker, program manager
at Lockheed Martin Naval Electronics and Surveillance Systems, in
St. Paul, Minn. The company’s AIP contract was extended until
2003, there are options to continue the work through 2005, he said.
The SLEP program that the Navy plans to launch in 2002 would be
a “bridge to a replacement aircraft, called the multi-mission
maritime aircraft,” Hill explained.
Different Options
The multi-mission maritime aircraft (MMA) is a separate program,
under which four complaints were awarded contracts to study different
options for a replacement aircraft. The studies will be evaluated
by the Center of Naval Analysis, a federally funded think tank.
The top leaders of the Navy, however, ultimately will select one,
or possibly more, of the four proposals.
The four contracts were awarded in late July and stipulated a five-month
study phase—setting a deadline for submission in late December.
Each study focuses on different approaches for revamping the P-3
fleet. Lockheed Martin was asked to review the cost and feasibility
of reopening the P-3 production line, as well as options for re-manufacturing
the current platforms. Raytheon also is studying options on re-manufacturing
current P-3s. A re-manufactured P-3 would have, for example, new
wings, engines and propellers. The Orion is powered by four Allison
turboprop engines.
The Boeing Company’s proposal is based on a commercial jet,
which would be customized for the maritime patrol mission. The Northrop
Grumman Corporation is evaluating concepts for using a long-range
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) as an adjunct to the P-3.
The MMA program was designed so that a new or rebuilt fleet would
be available no later than 2015, said Hill.
There are “ongoing discussions,” however, “ to
see if it’s possible to accelerate the MMA to a point that
SLEP might not be needed in 2002,” he added. But even though
the MMA studies were due this month, “there will not be definitive
decision on the MMA until we’ve completed the analysis of
alternatives,” Hill said. This analysis will be conducted
by the Center of Naval Analysis, to determine whether it’s
more economical to buy new aircraft or rebuild the old ones.
Cmdr. Al Easterling, the Navy’s deputy project manager for
MMA, told National Defense that the decision on whether the P-3
SLEP program will move forward in 2002 “has not yet been made.”
The analysis of alternatives, which began in July, “will
help provide the necessary information to facilitate that decision,
perhaps at the end of the this year,” said Easterling.
The analysis of alternatives goes hand-in-hand with the MMA studies
by the four contractors, he explained. “The idea is to use
the data developed from those concept exploration contracts, to
feed or form the development of the analysis of alternatives, which
we expect to conclude by August or September 2001.” An MMA
“down-select” is expected in December 2000, said Easterling.
But regardless of which proposal is selected, the UAV will stay
alive as a possible substitute for manned aircraft, he said. UAVs
will continue to be studied as part of a mixed manned-unmanned MMA
fleet. The manned portion could be either a commercial jet or a
re-manufactured P-3.
It is possible that the Navy could decide to accelerate MMA, so
that the new or rebuilt aircraft would join the fleet in 2010, instead
of 2015, Easterling said. If that is the case, he said, “there
wouldn’t be a SLEP needed.”
There is a sense of urgency to move ahead with this program, he
said, because “airplanes are reaching the end of their lives.
If we don’t take any mitigating action, we will have 40 P-3Cs
at 100-percent fatigue life expended by fiscal 2007.
“If we continue to do nothing and fly the aircraft at their
current pace, by fiscal 2011, we will have 83 aircraft parked,”
said Easterling. That would amount to nearly half the fleet. “Fatigue
life is our primary concern.”
The home ports for the P-3 today are located in Brunswick, Maine;
Jacksonville, Fla., Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii; and Whidbey Island, Wash.
There are squadrons deployed overseas as well, as part of a naval
battle group or operating under a theater commander.
The armaments on the P-3 range from Harpoon cruise missiles to
Maverick air-to-ground missiles, MK-46 torpedoes and mines.
Because the aircraft is equipped with standoff land attack missiles,
it can be used in a land attack role, said Hill. The Navy also is
considering how the P-3 could fit into its theater missile defense
program, he said. “Any role in theater missile defense would
revolve around the communications, connectivity and how it would
provide information into the sensor network.”
Company Studies
As the deadline approaches for the submission of MMA proposals,
the industry competitors believe they have provided enough information
for the Navy to make a decision that, they hope, will go in their
favor.
Officials at Northrop Grumman believe that the UAV will be part
of the Navy’s MMA strategy. One selling point in the company’s
proposal is that the UAV would work with any of the manned platforms
under consideration, said Howie Frauenberger, manager of the broad
area maritime surveillance program at Northrop Grumman Integrated
Systems and Aerostructures Sector, in Bethpage, N.Y.
“What we are trying to prove is that the hybrid [manned-unmanned]
concept is the right thing to do both from a performance and a cost
standpoint,” he said in an interview. One of the goals of
the study, he said, was to define the make-up of a hybrid force.
“How many unmanned and how many manned assets [the Navy needs]
is going to come out of the studies and the mission simulations
we are doing.”
The UAV proposed by Northrop Grumman would be similar to the one
the company developed for the U.S. Air Force, called the Global
Hawk. “It’s a vehicle that has a certain amount of maturity,”
said Frauenberger. “Will the actual UAV be a Global Hawk?
I can’t answer that. It could be a new [vehicle] or a derivative.”
The company’s study assumes that the UAV will be unarmed,
and primarily will perform intelligence gathering and surveillance
missions. The sensor package will include SAR, inverse SAR, electro-optical
and infrared systems, which would be linked to the manned platforms,
Frauenberger said.
Mixing manned and unmanned aircraft in the MMA program would save
the Navy up to $2 billion, according to Northrop Grumman. “We
compared a mixed force of manned and unmanned platforms, versus
251 manned platforms,” said Frauenberger. “The potential
savings of a mixed force could be $2 billion, all depending on how
many UAVs you use. That is one of the main thrusts of the current
study.”
Cost savings also are a big selling point in the proposal submitted
by Boeing, which is based on adapting commercial 737-700 jets for
the maritime patrol mission, explained Henry H. Davis, director
of maritime airborne systems at the Boeing Space and Communications
division, in Seal Beach, Calif.
A company-funded study 12 years ago concluded that the payload
required to perform surveillance missions—such as airborne
early warning, maritime patrol and signals intelligence—would
fit within the 737-700 jet. “Our baseline study is done around
that aircraft,” Davis said in an interview.
The mission equipment in Boeing’s proposal would be produced
in-house, and the capabilities would be similar to the mission systems
the company is developing for the United Kingdom’s Nimrod
maritime surveillance aircraft, said Davis. In that program, Boeing
is a subcontractor to BAE Systems. Nevertheless, he added, “we
would entertain other approaches for the U.S. Navy. The Navy has
not officially spoken on this subject.” The Nimrod, said Davis,
is more advanced than the P-3, but will not fly until at least 2002.
This is not the first time the Navy is considering using a Boeing
jet for the maritime patrol mission. A similar proposal was evaluated
more than 10 years ago, but was dismissed as too costly.
Since that time, however, “we’ve been through at least
three generations of manufacturing and aerodynamic technology. At
that time, the only aircraft that had the required payload capacity
was the 757, which is 50 percent larger than the 737. That aircraft
was more expensive.”
Boeing believes this time it can be more competitive. The company
estimated it would cost $55 million to remanufacture a P-3, including
new propellers and new engines. That price bogey, said Davis, is
“well within our capability with a new aircraft. ... We are
producing 737s at the rate of one per day. Cost is at an all-time
low.”
The Navy also could save money by turning the P-3 logistics support
operation into a commercially oriented enterprise, said Davis. “We
are tailoring what commercial airlines do today in logistics and
support concepts. We’ve been talking to the Navy about tailoring
their operations to be more like an airline.”
Davis also pointed out that the original P-3 was derived from Lockheed’s
Electra commercial airliner. Turning a commercial aircraft into
a military platform, he said, is a “doable engineering task.”
Boeing currently is in discussions with the German government about
the possible use of a 737 as a maritime patrol aircraft. The 737
also is being proposed as a signals intelligence platform for the
Israeli government. Australia had selected the 737 for its airborne
early warning program, but the project is on hold pending budget
decisions.
“We would go out to the international P-3 customers, who
are waiting for the U.S. Navy to make a decision,” said Davis.
There are about 15 countries that currently operate nearly 500 P-3s
worldwide.
Even though Boeing’s MMA proposal does not involve a UAV,
the company potentially could compete against Northrop Grumman with
its own vehicle, said Davis. The same team that is developing an
armed UAV for the Air Force also is working on a “multi-role
endurance UAV” program for the Navy, he explained. “We
also looked at applicability of Global Hawk-type aircraft.”
For the current portion of the MMA program, he said, “we
are focused on the manned requirement now. ... After this initial
phase, we may talk more seriously about a Boeing UAV.” If
the Navy decided to buy the 737, Davis said, “we could be
in [engineering/ development] in 2002, and in production by 2004
or 2005.”
Concerns Are Not New
The choices for the Navy are not easy, noted Dennis A. Pignotti,
a retired naval aviator who flew P-3s for nearly 30 years. But the
reality, he said, is that “none of problems confronting the
Navy’s P-3 community today is new.”
“In the late 1980s, we were talking about the service life
problems, when we had twice as many operational active duty squadrons,”
he said in an interview. At the time, the Navy was considering a
commercial variant or a Lockheed-build P-3 follow-on, he said. “But
with the end of the Cold War, the whole situation changed,”
because the force structure was cut in half.
The P-3 mission has evolved over time, Pignotti said. “It’s
always done reconnaissance work, but that role is not as critical
now, because there are new surveillance platforms and advanced sensors
available to the Navy, other than P-3s.”
If the Navy decided to include UAVs in the maritime patrol fleet,
Pignotti said, it may not save as much money as many people believe.
“A mix causes support, maintenance and other kinds of problems,”
he said. “You need different folks for different kinds of
support. I would not buy a mix. They should come up with the aircraft
that best suits the missions that they see for patrol aviation in
the future.”