Chicago Tribune
May 8, 2004
Boeing, Lockheed In Chase For Sub Hunters
By Susan Chandler, Tribune staff reporter
ST. LOUIS--As a Navy pilot, Tim Norgart spent more than 4,500 hours flying Lockheed P-3 Orions, a trusty propeller plane designed to hunt enemy submarines in the ocean's deep blue water.
Through engine trouble and onboard fires, the P-3 always got him safely home.
Now, Norgart works for Boeing Corp., Lockheed Martin Corp.'s chief rival, and he's doing everything possible to knock P-3s from the skies.
In about a month, the Navy will choose between the companies in awarding a $3 billion contract to develop a new-generation anti-submarine aircraft.
Lockheed's entry is an updated version of the venerable plane that Norgart flew: a four-engine propeller craft with the same dimensions as its predecessor. The twin-jet-engine Boeing entry is nothing like the P-3.
Although the initial Navy contract will cover the development of only a few prototypes, it puts the winner in position to land a $20 billion deal if the Navy proceeds with its plans to procure a new anti-submarine fleet of more than 100 aircraft.
Competition for the contract for the sub hunter, known as the MMA, or multimission maritime aircraft, is bare-knuckled.
Boeing says Lockheed is trying to palm off a 1950s-era plane on a high-tech Navy. "We're not warming stuff over," scoffed Norgart.
Lockheed says its aircraft is more affordable and better suited to search for subs because it can fly low and stay longer, conserving fuel by turning off engines.
The bigger question is whether the Navy will pony up the big money for the anti-submarine fleet a few years down the road.
There are lots of doubters.
"The Navy is much more interested in aircraft carriers, destroyers and the FA-18 Super Hornet," said Loren Thompson, military analyst with the Lexington Institute, a defense think tank in Arlington, Va. "This could become a bill payer for other, higher priority initiatives."
History tends to support the skeptics.
In the late 1980s, the Navy had another competition to find a successor for the P-3. Lockheed proposed the P-7; Boeing offered a derivative of its 757 commercial jetliner. Lockheed won, but the Navy canceled the program.
Norgart is doing his best to ensure Boeing carries the day this time, and several analysts say the odds appear to favor Boeing.
The Chicago-based aerospace manufacturer is offering the Navy a new aircraft based on the Boeing 737, the most popular commercial jet ever made.
The new aircraft wouldn't have windows, but it would have weapons on its wings and a bay from which to drop torpedoes or bombs. Sonar buoys would be deployed from holes in the aircraft's belly.
Inside, crew members would sit in front of sophisticated computers analyzing data from the aircraft's sensors. Because it is a jet, the 737 derivative would be able to get to the scene faster, narrowing the search area, Boeing says.
"It's a real Cadillac system," said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with Teal Group. "No one in recent years has converted a jetliner into an anti-sub weapon."
Boeing also believes its vast inventory of replacement parts and numerous stations around the world where 737s are serviced add to its entry's appeal.
"Today, the Department of Defense has to pay for a support system for 220 P-3s. We don't think they should have to do that," said Norgart, who works at Boeing's defense headquarters here. "We can save the Navy $300 million in initial spare parts and over $60 million annually by letting us carry the inventory."
Boeing also is touting the reliability of the workhorse 737, the only aircraft flown by Southwest Airlines, which relies on quick aircraft turnarounds to keep its fares low.
But turning a 737 into an anti-submarine aircraft is another matter, military analysts say, because Boeing would have to cut a bay into a pressurized airframe, no simple undertaking.
Lockheed isn't about to give up the fight.
The Bethesda, Md.-based military contractor calls its contender the Orion 21. From the outside, it looks like an old P3, but everything inside, from the avionics to the propulsion system, is new, says Lockheed.
"We have offered a technically superior solution that provides the U.S. Navy with a low-risk, affordable solution," said Jack Crisler, Lockheed's director of business development for the MMA project.
Lockheed says it has a global support system, too, with 16 nations operating P-3s. And Crisler derides the idea the Navy is interested in replacement parts that might have been destined for commercial carriers.
"The Navy wants a closed inventory loop," he said.
Lockheed and Boeing's bids are strong, Aboulafia said, but if the Navy doesn't fund the program, Lockheed wins because it will continue to upgrade the existing P-3 fleet.
No matter who carries the day, the Navy's anti-submarine fleet will be getting smaller.
The collapse of the Soviet Union removed the biggest submarine threat, military experts say. And the Pentagon is reordering its military priorities to better fit the guerrilla-type wars the U.S. is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, where submarines aren't an issue.
But the Navy says it isn't ready to write off potential submarine threats from such other countries as China and Iran, which operate diesel submarines that can be hard to detect near coastlines.
"From the Navy's perspective, one of the most important things we look at is the [submarine] threat," said Commander Mike Hewitt, the Navy's P-3/MMA requirements officer.
Hunting subs is a "capability you want to keep intact," agreed Aboulafia. "It's almost a black art, an arcane science."
Still, much anti-submarine reconnaissance in the future will be carried out by unmanned aerial vehicles, known as UAVs for short. The Navy is in the process of developing UAVs, and the new anti-submarine aircraft would have to work with them, Hewitt said.
Even with UAVs, the Navy says it will need more than 100 anti-submarine aircraft.
"They cannot afford for the MMA program to slide," Norgart said. "The P-3s are being retired faster than anyone ever anticipated. There are so few of them left, they can't do the mission they were doing before."
A win for Boeing's defense business would benefit the company's commercial side as well.
Its 737 production line is running at a little more than half capacity, and an order for 100 aircraft, spread out over decades, would provide a giant, long-term boost.
But in the short-term, it wouldn't mean much. The prototypes are scheduled for 2006, and the first group of production craft wouldn't be ready until 2013.
In the greater scheme of Boeing's business, the contract isn't all that important, analysts say. Its defense business is booming, even with a $23.5 billion deal for Air Force refueling tankers stalled.
"The big Boeing story for the next five years will be the recovery of the commercial aircraft cycle," said Thompson of the Lexington Institute.
"That will make the MMA and tankers look a lot less important than they did a year ago."
May 8, 2004
Boeing, Lockheed In Chase For Sub Hunters
By Susan Chandler, Tribune staff reporter
ST. LOUIS--As a Navy pilot, Tim Norgart spent more than 4,500 hours flying Lockheed P-3 Orions, a trusty propeller plane designed to hunt enemy submarines in the ocean's deep blue water.
Through engine trouble and onboard fires, the P-3 always got him safely home.
Now, Norgart works for Boeing Corp., Lockheed Martin Corp.'s chief rival, and he's doing everything possible to knock P-3s from the skies.
In about a month, the Navy will choose between the companies in awarding a $3 billion contract to develop a new-generation anti-submarine aircraft.
Lockheed's entry is an updated version of the venerable plane that Norgart flew: a four-engine propeller craft with the same dimensions as its predecessor. The twin-jet-engine Boeing entry is nothing like the P-3.
Although the initial Navy contract will cover the development of only a few prototypes, it puts the winner in position to land a $20 billion deal if the Navy proceeds with its plans to procure a new anti-submarine fleet of more than 100 aircraft.
Competition for the contract for the sub hunter, known as the MMA, or multimission maritime aircraft, is bare-knuckled.
Boeing says Lockheed is trying to palm off a 1950s-era plane on a high-tech Navy. "We're not warming stuff over," scoffed Norgart.
Lockheed says its aircraft is more affordable and better suited to search for subs because it can fly low and stay longer, conserving fuel by turning off engines.
The bigger question is whether the Navy will pony up the big money for the anti-submarine fleet a few years down the road.
There are lots of doubters.
"The Navy is much more interested in aircraft carriers, destroyers and the FA-18 Super Hornet," said Loren Thompson, military analyst with the Lexington Institute, a defense think tank in Arlington, Va. "This could become a bill payer for other, higher priority initiatives."
History tends to support the skeptics.
In the late 1980s, the Navy had another competition to find a successor for the P-3. Lockheed proposed the P-7; Boeing offered a derivative of its 757 commercial jetliner. Lockheed won, but the Navy canceled the program.
Norgart is doing his best to ensure Boeing carries the day this time, and several analysts say the odds appear to favor Boeing.
The Chicago-based aerospace manufacturer is offering the Navy a new aircraft based on the Boeing 737, the most popular commercial jet ever made.
The new aircraft wouldn't have windows, but it would have weapons on its wings and a bay from which to drop torpedoes or bombs. Sonar buoys would be deployed from holes in the aircraft's belly.
Inside, crew members would sit in front of sophisticated computers analyzing data from the aircraft's sensors. Because it is a jet, the 737 derivative would be able to get to the scene faster, narrowing the search area, Boeing says.
"It's a real Cadillac system," said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with Teal Group. "No one in recent years has converted a jetliner into an anti-sub weapon."
Boeing also believes its vast inventory of replacement parts and numerous stations around the world where 737s are serviced add to its entry's appeal.
"Today, the Department of Defense has to pay for a support system for 220 P-3s. We don't think they should have to do that," said Norgart, who works at Boeing's defense headquarters here. "We can save the Navy $300 million in initial spare parts and over $60 million annually by letting us carry the inventory."
Boeing also is touting the reliability of the workhorse 737, the only aircraft flown by Southwest Airlines, which relies on quick aircraft turnarounds to keep its fares low.
But turning a 737 into an anti-submarine aircraft is another matter, military analysts say, because Boeing would have to cut a bay into a pressurized airframe, no simple undertaking.
Lockheed isn't about to give up the fight.
The Bethesda, Md.-based military contractor calls its contender the Orion 21. From the outside, it looks like an old P3, but everything inside, from the avionics to the propulsion system, is new, says Lockheed.
"We have offered a technically superior solution that provides the U.S. Navy with a low-risk, affordable solution," said Jack Crisler, Lockheed's director of business development for the MMA project.
Lockheed says it has a global support system, too, with 16 nations operating P-3s. And Crisler derides the idea the Navy is interested in replacement parts that might have been destined for commercial carriers.
"The Navy wants a closed inventory loop," he said.
Lockheed and Boeing's bids are strong, Aboulafia said, but if the Navy doesn't fund the program, Lockheed wins because it will continue to upgrade the existing P-3 fleet.
No matter who carries the day, the Navy's anti-submarine fleet will be getting smaller.
The collapse of the Soviet Union removed the biggest submarine threat, military experts say. And the Pentagon is reordering its military priorities to better fit the guerrilla-type wars the U.S. is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, where submarines aren't an issue.
But the Navy says it isn't ready to write off potential submarine threats from such other countries as China and Iran, which operate diesel submarines that can be hard to detect near coastlines.
"From the Navy's perspective, one of the most important things we look at is the [submarine] threat," said Commander Mike Hewitt, the Navy's P-3/MMA requirements officer.
Hunting subs is a "capability you want to keep intact," agreed Aboulafia. "It's almost a black art, an arcane science."
Still, much anti-submarine reconnaissance in the future will be carried out by unmanned aerial vehicles, known as UAVs for short. The Navy is in the process of developing UAVs, and the new anti-submarine aircraft would have to work with them, Hewitt said.
Even with UAVs, the Navy says it will need more than 100 anti-submarine aircraft.
"They cannot afford for the MMA program to slide," Norgart said. "The P-3s are being retired faster than anyone ever anticipated. There are so few of them left, they can't do the mission they were doing before."
A win for Boeing's defense business would benefit the company's commercial side as well.
Its 737 production line is running at a little more than half capacity, and an order for 100 aircraft, spread out over decades, would provide a giant, long-term boost.
But in the short-term, it wouldn't mean much. The prototypes are scheduled for 2006, and the first group of production craft wouldn't be ready until 2013.
In the greater scheme of Boeing's business, the contract isn't all that important, analysts say. Its defense business is booming, even with a $23.5 billion deal for Air Force refueling tankers stalled.
"The big Boeing story for the next five years will be the recovery of the commercial aircraft cycle," said Thompson of the Lexington Institute.
"That will make the MMA and tankers look a lot less important than they did a year ago."