US Navy Announces P-3 Orion Replacement: Boeing MMA

Winter

New Member
Boeing wins $3.9bn patrol contract

(AP) The U.S. Navy has awarded a Boeing Co. subsidiary a $3.89 billion contract to develop a long-range patrol plane to replace Lockheed's P-3 Orion submarine hunter, the Pentagon announced.

Boeing will base the new plane on its 737 airliner. The Chicago-based company was chosen over rival Lockheed Martin for the project, which could be worth $44 billion by the mid-2030s.

The new plane, called a Multimission Maritime Aircraft, will replace the P-3, a venerable design that has been in use since 1962.

The P-3 production line shut down in 1990, and Navy officials said the average age of the 196 aircraft still in the inventory is 26 years. The plane developed into an airborne battlefield observation platform, including missions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Like the P-3, the new plane will be designed to hunt submarines and surface vessels and conduct long-range surveillance. Unlike the P-3, the plane will be a jet instead of a turboprop.

John J. Young Jr., the Navy's assistant secretary for research, development and acquisition, said during a news conference Monday that he expects the new plane to be ready to deploy by 2013. According to Young, Boeing said it could be finished a year sooner.

The initial $3.89 billion development contract includes money to build only three demonstrator and test aircraft, Young said. It also includes $314 million in incentives if Boeing completes work on schedule, said Thomas E. Laux, a Navy executive overseeing the program.

The production run of 108 combat-capable planes is expected to cost $20 billion; including development, production and at least 20 years of maintenance, the program will run to $44 billion.

Boeing subsidiary McDonnell Douglas of Long Beach, California, won the contract. The airframes will be built at the Boeing plant in Wichita, Kan., and completed in Washington state.

"This is a huge win for Boeing and its employees in Washington and around the country," said Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat.

Lockheed Martin had based its proposal on an extensive upgrade of the P-3. Young praised both the Boeing and Lockheed proposals but suggested Boeing's proposals for its production line gave it the edge.

The plane will have a crew of nine and have a weapons bay capable of launching antisubmarine torpedoes, air-to-surface missiles and underwater mines. It will have the ability to fly long distances, then linger over the deep sea or a coastline, the Navy said.

He also said a plane built to hunt submarines still has a role in the post-Cold War world, saying that 40 countries operate some 400 submarines.

"This continues to be a very serious threat," he said.

Only a few of those countries are considered unfriendly to the United States. Iran, North Korea and China all have submarines.

Source: CNN

The competitor, the 'Orion 21' upgrade design:



The Boeing MMA:

 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
srirangan said:
This was a do-or-die contract for Boeing. Congrats!
I can't but help think that Boeing won this on a "gift". failure to score this one would have been morally and financially debilitating.

Personally, I'd like to see an Airbus MMA, the Aust tests showed that the Airbus was longer ranged, and more economical on a given flyoff weight.
 

Winter

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
gf0012 said:
I can't but help think that Boeing won this on a "gift". failure to score this one would have been morally and financially debilitating.

Personally, I'd like to see an Airbus MMA, the Aust tests showed that the Airbus was longer ranged, and more economical on a given flyoff weight.
You mean in the tanker evaluations?

As far as the politics of this goes, is the US Navy really that exposed to these external influences as opposed to say, the DoD or more recently, the USAF?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
srirangan said:
Gf,
That could be true, but I think we should give Boeing the benefit of doubt.
I saw the declass submission, and everything in it was logical against Lockheeds proposal, the comment was more due to the hits Boeing is taking on the "hill" at the moment.
 

Salman78

New Member
Orion21 was a much much better option but Boeing was awarded the contract to keep it in business as the company was suffering a lot after it lost the ATF ( F-22) competition.

I subscribe to the airforces monthly magazine and this was in its North America News section. This piece of info clearly shows how superior the Orion21 was

" Orion21 features a fully-digitised all galss cockpit, P&W150 engines, composite blade propellers with individual blade replacement. Lockheed martin has selected a turboprop engine because it believes this will optimise performance in the ASW mission. The company claims this will give the aircraft 25% more power, 60% more thrust and burn 27% less fuel then a turbofan - a direct challenge to Boeing's proposed MMA trubofan powered 737"

The benifits speak for itself and US navy is already familiar with P3C's... Politics!!! :mad
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Salman78 said:
" Orion21 features a fully-digitised all galss cockpit, P&W150 engines, composite blade propellers with individual blade replacement. Lockheed martin has selected a turboprop engine because it believes this will optimise performance in the ASW mission. The company claims this will give the aircraft 25% more power, 60% more thrust and burn 27% less fuel then a turbofan - a direct challenge to Boeing's proposed MMA trubofan powered 737"

The benifits speak for itself and US navy is already familiar with P3C's... Politics!!! :mad
The Lockheed 21 was a non starter. The whole fundamental problem with the P3/P7/21 was centre barrel fatigue. There are insufficient frames available with low flying hours. The USN's platforms are all high in hours and would have been tasked with greater mission responsibility which the platform would not have been able to sustain in high intensity cycles. The Orions would have not been able to go through further MLU's or engine upgrades as the body would not have survived the process. It was completely cost ineffective to make new barrels - which was also never on offer.

It could not carry as much, was unable to carry sufficient potable water for extended missions and had less room for weaps expansions.

The Boeing offer had a greater load out, was able to take advantage of larger internal volume, a larger installed base and had a redesigned weaps area that was able to demonstrate greater load up.

The other principle advantage is that the 737's can be modified at wing root level to use long range/high altitude designed main wings. The Orion would never have been able to get higher for AEW work (which is what they needed to be considered for in a multi role tasking)

It was a no brainer. I've been in a P3 and an EW 737, it's like chalk and cheese.
 

Salman78

New Member
gf0012-aust said:
Salman78 said:
" Orion21 features a fully-digitised all galss cockpit, P&W150 engines, composite blade propellers with individual blade replacement. Lockheed martin has selected a turboprop engine because it believes this will optimise performance in the ASW mission. The company claims this will give the aircraft 25% more power, 60% more thrust and burn 27% less fuel then a turbofan - a direct challenge to Boeing's proposed MMA trubofan powered 737"

The benifits speak for itself and US navy is already familiar with P3C's... Politics!!! :mad
The Lockheed 21 was a non starter. The whole fundamental problem with the P3/P7/21 was centre barrel fatigue. There are insufficient frames available with low flying hours. The USN's platforms are all high in hours and would have been tasked with greater mission responsibility which the platform would not have been able to sustain in high intensity cycles. The Orions would have not been able to go through further MLU's or engine upgrades as the body would not have survived the process. It was completely cost ineffective to make new barrels - which was also never on offer.

It could not carry as much, was unable to carry sufficient potable water for extended missions and had less room for weaps expansions.

The Boeing offer had a greater load out, was able to take advantage of larger internal volume, a larger installed base and had a redesigned weaps area that was able to demonstrate greater load up.

The other principle advantage is that the 737's can be modified at wing root level to use long range/high altitude designed main wings. The Orion would never have been able to get higher for AEW work (which is what they needed to be considered for in a multi role tasking)

It was a no brainer. I've been in a P3 and an EW 737, it's like chalk and cheese.

I dont know where u get ur information from but here r some facts from the same source and from Lockheed's website. Ill make it short

21 was going to be a all-new and proven airframe.
none of the existing P3's were going to be upgraded so all that "barrel fatigue" bit is pointless.
Any of the Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft MMA would NOT be taking part in any AEW because their primary mission is Anti-submarine warefare, Anti-Surface Warfare and maritime intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance .
US navy wants 150 brand new planes with expected service entry by 2013. Boieng lost contract for F22, JSF, new small diameter bomb and a big chunk of airliner deals recently. the decision to get 737 was influential. not many navies operating the current P3's will opt for the boeing 737.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Salman. I have been part of a P3 Upgrade project. I do have the non public domain data - as opposed to Lockheeds media spin.

The principle client of volume was the USN, that doesn't mean that the Orion upgrade project is completely dead (for foreign sales). Contrary to what you say, a considerable number of navies and airforces are considering the Boeing iteration. Centre barrel and wing root problems are a huge issue of consideration as the USN discovered some 6 months ago that it was worse than originally perceived.

So, my info is closer to the decision outcome than what you may read in a magazine or see on the internet.
 

umair

Peace Enforcer
Loooonnnngggg time no see Winter!Where were you? :help
Anyhow a smart decision by the Navy.I wonder wether the Nimrod's service record with England had some influence on the navy going for the MMA.On the whole the Nimrod was considered better than the Orion in the whole Maritime patrol paradigm.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
umair said:
Loooonnnngggg time no see Winter!Where were you? :help
Anyhow a smart decision by the Navy.I wonder wether the Nimrod's service record with England had some influence on the navy going for the MMA.On the whole the Nimrod was considered better than the Orion in the whole Maritime patrol paradigm.
I would have liked to see an Airbus solution get up. IMHO it's the better jet powered platform. More economical, longer range, greater payload. As a non US maritime option it could still get some decent sales.
 
Top