Let's see if we can define this pedigree.
- Waste a few years chasing a DC PPT centric ACS program that Line 13XX told everyone who would listen would not work - and then try to get on the P-8 program.
- Wait until the last minute to do actual airframe testing using realistic and sound engineering principals on the P-3 airframe and discovering - shock - that all our rosy scenario fatigue life predictions were fried air.
- Our closest ally got rid of their Maritime Patrol Aircraft after the Dutch did: precedent.
- No one wants to talk about unsexy "High Demand - Low Density" aircraft - a hesitancy that has nothing to do with their "Dare Not Speak Its Name" whatevertheydo.
- Huge budget crunch coming.
- All other Navy Air programs bunching-up and bloating.
- 13XX Senior Leadership looking for something to throw under the TACAIR lov'n bus.
.... and then; someone has a friend in Congress.
(b) REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN CAPABILITIES.—Of course, the fun question will be how good the VQ/VPU/VP folks will be in protecting their Command slots - Skippy can brief you.
(1) PROHIBITION ON RETIREMENT OF PLATFORMS.—The Secretary of the Navy may not retire (or to prepare to retire) the EP-3E Airborne Reconnaissance Integrated Electronic System II or Special Projects Aircraft platform.
(2) MAINTENANCE OF PLATFORMS.—The Secretary of the Navy shall continue to maintain, sustain, and upgrade the EP-3E Airborne Reconnaissance Integrated Electronic System II and Special Projects Aircraft platforms in order to provide capabilities necessary to operate effectively against rapidly evolving threats and to meet combatant commander operational intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance requirements.
(3) CERTIFICATION.—Not later than February 1, 2011, and annually thereafter, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall jointly certify to Congress the following:
(A) The Secretary of the Navy is maintaining and sustaining the EP-3E Airborne Reconnaissance Integrated Electronic System II and Special Projects Aircraft platform in a manner that meets the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance requirements of the commanders of the combatant commands.
(B) Any plan for the retirement or replacement of the EP-3E Airborne Reconnaissance Integrated Electronic System II or Special Projects Aircraft platform will provide, in the aggregate, an equivalent or superior capability and capacity to the platform concerned.
(4) TERMINATION.—The requirements of this subsection with respect to the EP-3E Airborne Reconnaissance Integrated Electronic System II or the Special Projects Aircraft platform shall expire on the commencement of the fielding by the Navy of a platform or mix of platforms and sensors that are, in the aggregate, equivalent or superior to the EP-3E Airborne Reconnaissance Integrated Electronic System II (spiral 3) or the Special Projects Aircraft (P909) platform.
Ahhh,
ReplyDeleteThe strains of (too much) Hornet Love waft through the holiday season...
A sad tune really.
This is a f*cking crime. No matter what technical fixes you make you still can't overcome the structural fatigue issues and the inadequate inventory. Had Carlos Johnson and the boys listened to the plan the JO's laid out at NSAWC so may years ago-a SIGINT version of the C-40 would be flying today. With a higher service ceiling and a longer on station time. Thanks Vern, Thanks Black, Thanks Rat-thanks for nothing. The P-3 community has refused to treat the EW mission with any respect-and their leadership has a lot to account for.
ReplyDeleteAmen, Amen, and dare I say - AMEN!
ReplyDeleteLRMP a/c the Coast guard has owned around 30 very long range patrol a/c for decades. In the past decade they have attempted with only token results to replace their old Hercules with newer model HH-130J LRMP's. In 10 years of efforts the Coast Guard has only managed to obtain 6 new "J" models for HH-130 fleet. In theory they need 2 dozen more, but DEEPWATER doesn't seem able or willing to obtain funding for these needed aircraft. DEEPWATER is, however, managing to start purchasing some much smaller Spainish designed HC-144A patrol a/c which can fly extremely slow and drop SAR equip to ships if needed.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the Navy should purchase very short range, extremely slow, but admittedly cheaper foreign LRMP aircraft like the US Coast Guard is doing ?
(just funnin' ) :)
Skippy & Sal:
ReplyDeleteThe ELINT bubbas (Q-1 & 2) have been the bastard stepchildren of Naval Aviation for time immemorial. (Quick, name the last VQ Flag) They (we) have been on the #$%^-end of the procurement stick, with a brief exception of the mid-80's when they got P-3C and S-3 airframes. The Electro-Luxes were slain by the Clinton bean-counters and the VQ folks, especially after they were assimilated by the VP-Borg, were told to "make do." The mission is very, very specialized and expecting the VP mentality to understand it thoroughly is a waste of both your time. Likewise the different impact the flight regimes take on the airframe. When the Frankenstein-monster Common Platform (thanks "Enterprise management") was proposed the chorus of "WTF?!?" from all sides thankfully drove a stake in he beast, but at the expense, as we see, of the now all too common "just make do" mentality.
But don't get me started...
Resolution for 2011: I need to come out of the Great North Woods, cross the Big Waters and come East, there to meet up with SJS, Gal, you and, if you buy me enough beer, tell you tales that make you weep. I may try and bring a friend, who knows where many of the skeletons are buried at NAVAIR, for he helped to bury them.
Those airframes were old - the ARIES II electronics were a hodgepodge of stuff that never worked right together. Heck half the plane had to be rewired in Greenville. We were told that this was the only way the community would survive as there was no money for a new airframe 'cause it couldn't drop bombs & didn't have a pointy noise or land on the boat. A lot of good landing on the boat did for the ES-3. As you said - don't get me started.
ReplyDeleteNow...if we just knew a gret invesitgative reporter to do the exhumation with.....
ReplyDeleteSal: You best backchannel any meetings like this for the faithful to attented to hear Byron put in his 2 cents...publishing such a conference in the open would certainly allowed for the arrival of black helos on top....
1. Nice pic of a Mercator. I always thought that was a good looking airplane. Of course, I have odd tastes in what looks good. I thought the Intruder was sexy, and the Hornet boring.
ReplyDelete2. I weep when I see the mess that NavAir has become. For 20 years, NavAir has done everything they can to make themselves irrelevant.
But it will be a diverse irrelevancy.
ReplyDeleteIt's a shame to see so much competition between the VP and VQ communities when each provides a far more in-demand service (certainly the 5th and 7th fleets, not to mention CENTCOM overland work) than pointy noses. When partner countries ask for help they are invariably more interested in MDA than in strike capabilities...
ReplyDelete(this is probably oversimplifying--I know that having TACAIR is the only thing that gives the CSG its strategic impact, but to this bubblehead it seems that you get much more value for the dollar investing in MPRA than yet another F/A platform).
The platform pecking order determines the ladder of evolution and promotion error strikes!, again.
ReplyDeleteThe only place the VQ bubbas are succeeding is that they are now Looking Glass. All of the E-6B's of VQ-3 and VQ-4 have taken over from the USAF EC-135's in that role. The USAF loves the E-6B's for thier space and their manuverability, plus the fact that they were about 30 yrs newer then the youngest EC-135 bird.
ReplyDelete"Byron" who?
ReplyDeleteThat's the myth of MPRA - that VP and VQ both provide ISR. VQ provides ISR. VP is supposed to do ASW. The competition between VP and VQ is based on VP trying to vouch that, like the Hornet, they can do everything.
ReplyDeleteIs there anything more absurd than seeing P-3s at 10k AGL over Bosnia attempting to verify if SA-6's were in cantonment? Was there anything more pathetic than VP taking repeated SLAM shots and misses during Allied Force? Is there anything worse than having ADM Mullen tell the senior VP admiral, in front of the room full of MPRA officers, that VP does not "get" ASW?
VP needs to get ASW and stop this fictional competition with VQ. Then maybe, with the air gap between the missions, people and platforms - we can truly get on to the right replacement for the EP-3 without the baggage of VP.
Who sponsored this?
ReplyDeleteHistorically, a wise fleet commander emphasized scouting...at the expense of strike, if need be. Recollect Nelson's constant demands for more frigates, or the fact that a good quarter of USN carrier aircraft in 1942 were scout planes.
ReplyDeleteCould it also be in all of the specifications that you mention is cause organic intelligence to the carrier force was lacking? Could it also be that we have VPU's who fly airplanes that look at whole bunch like a regular VP P-3, that does some of the same stuff that at VQ EP-3 does plus some? Could it be that the other reason the VP community wants to do ASW, MPA, ISR, etc; could be that has been thier mission since 1915's when the first set Curtiss model H's were bought for use by the US Navy.
ReplyDelete<span>As an old mud Marine I should hesitate to enter into a discussion of grand Naval strategy. However, as an end user in the ISR chain, I sometimes wonder how the clowns at NAVAIR can even drive home at the end of the day since they all seem to suffer from terminal anal-cranial inversion syndrome.</span>
ReplyDelete<span> </span>
<span>Can anyone tell me how long it's been since a CINC was screaming for additional VQ assets? Maybe this morning?</span>
<span> </span>
<span>And can anyone tell me when the last time a VP was actually tasked with real world ASW responsibility? Some of those clowns have NEVER actually flown a real ASW mission.</span>
<span> </span>
<span>Some people are going to scream about how outrageous it is for Congress to get involved in this. I'm actually glad to see that somebody gets it, and is willing to try to save the Navy from itself. It's hard not to recall the days of the 1930's when the battleship Navy was doing it's best to marginalize the aviation side of the house. Can you remember how one Sunday morning taught a lesson on the importance of ISR?</span>
<span> </span>
<span>The P-3 Mafia reminds me of the armor mafia in the Army that insisted that the Ruskies were coming through the Fulda Gap any moment now and we needed to put ALL the money into tanks. The P-3 community just can't accept the fact that times, and threats, change. And they appear more than willing to sacrifice the entire VQ community in a misguided effort to assert their own relevance.</span>
<span> </span>
<span>I don’t know which Congressman came up with this language, but I applaud him. He would appear to be a lot brighter than anyone in the Navy hierarchy these days. </span>
<p><span> </span>
</p>
Marine6,
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't call those in the VP world as clowns, the reason they haven't been flying ASW mission is cause the belief that since the Cold War was won, we don't need to worry about other submarines. So the deployments to Signollea, Adak, Iceland, Norway, Degio, Misawa, etc. So when leadership in the five sided wind tunnel desides that there isn't a submarine threat. Ergo, they don't fly those missions and rather react to the latest and greatest red monkey. It is no different in my world of ECM Q-birds. There are some questioning whether or not if we are going to fly against an IADS like what Iraq was in 1991, or Libya was in 1986, or Vietnam was in the 60's to 70's, or what we detected the Kola Pennusila was from the 1970's until the end of the cold war. So if we aren't going to fly against an IADS in the recent time frame, so do really need to pratice this mission or the more important EWCAS mission? Where do you spend your precious OPTAR flight hour dollar? What grants you that next promotion if your an Ops Officer, an Maintenance Officer, or an CO/XO?
Things is, had we decided to do it, there would be SLEP'd P-3's in the fleet and even new-construction P-3's arriving regularly.
ReplyDeleteNow we have two demonstrator P-8's at Pax. The funds for the next 4 were transferred to the DDG-1000 budget, along with a chunk of their operating and maintenance funds.
Boeing has, however, begun work on the first P-8i for the Indian Navy.
Since we seem to be outsourcing everything else to India, perhaps we can just GIVE them the damned P-8's, in exchange for them doing our ASW ops.
I'd also add that the 1st of the Ohio-Class SSBN's are due to begin retiring in 14 years. There is currently no follow-on boomer in design or development. I guess that's okay, since with the new START treaty, we aren't likely to have any warheads to put on the Tridents anyway.
Our SSN fleet is being reduced through attrition.
We have no medium-ranged fixed wing ASW aircraft. They all sit out in the desert.
We DO have new Navy (and very soon, Army!) uniforms, and will be refitting our submarines to accomodate women. Diverse women. Maybe even diverse wombyn. Hard to say.
Maybe we can just adapt every platform we have to carry F/A-18's, since the Navy seems to think that that Hornets can do everything! We can paint them all in NWU blue cammy, with a rainbow on the tail. THAT would be fitting.
We are so @*&)($^&@.........
We suck.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we can just adapt every platform we have to carry F/A-18's
ReplyDeleteYou mean...
Like this?
Hornet Love.
VQ2 Maintenance Control dateline 2013:
ReplyDeleteMaint Master Chief - "MO the planes are all down for parts. also NDI was bad news and since we dont have a FRAC anymore our Third Class AD's are saying that they wont come to work unless CMC allows them to bring their Significant others to the Command Picinic."
Maint Officer - Master Chief, show them the new Congressional Requirements and tell them to get back to work"
Master Chief - "fuck me I am too old for this shit..."
Congressional Requirements - "all Maintenance Master Chiefs and Senior and Chief Petty Officers are required to remain on active duty. CJCS will be briefed quarterly by the SECNAV on all VQ / VP Maintenance Senior Enlisted Leadership. oh and 30 percent have to be diverse.."
.... "Yes sir, No sir, 3 bags full sir!".....
ReplyDeleteCue piano and tap dancing sailors.......
Sigh.
MTH,
ReplyDeleteCome on ADs? Naw - the AWs will be the first ones with "Ted & Fred" vanity plates.
Reminds me of a license plate I saw in Maine many moons ago with a red DOD sticker. "1MA BTM"
ISYN. I bet he was an AW. O:-)
As I remember, it was a ghey Moffet based AW that opened up the whole preDADT can of worms in the first place....
ReplyDeleteJust sayin' 8-)
(sorry AW1 Tim...couldn't resist)
"Headin' to the "HOTLINE HOTEL for a BOTTOM SEARCH"...
ReplyDeleteO:-)
On a serious note, I served with a VP guy who was on his crew post-out. He was a good AW and his prediction in his off-base activity had no impact on his performance in the aircraft.
ReplyDeleteWe prefer "Adam and Steve" or "Bruce and Harold"
ReplyDeleteSid yea I know who you speak of.. him and I have had words of conflict in other blog forums.. wont be long before he pops up here or USNI and claims he was right the entire time...
I served with two gay aircrew. One was an AW, the other a Radioman. Had no complaints about either as far as their crew abilities, they were squared away, very professional.
ReplyDeleteHowever, their wardrobes (civilian) DID open a number of eyes.
Cannibalize some IL-38's ? Wonder if the parts are interchangable?
ReplyDeleteIt could be worse... you could end up like Russia with total of 10 ships built AFTER 1989...
ReplyDeleteI remeber in Harpoon my fastest assets to investigate SOSUS/long range sonar contact were always patrol planes... helos were good but slower and low endurance.
Indians seem to take chinese subs seriously. I think they are VERY RIGHT.
re: START, actualy it frees up some $$ from maintaining mutual overkill vis-a-vis Russia, so this isnt as bad.
Are you sure about the longer onstation time?
ReplyDeleteI think she is referring to aerial refueling capability?
ReplyDelete