USAF Gameplan [Archive] - Page 2

buglerbilly

30-09-11, 01:50 PM

BAE Systems Brings New Hawk Advanced Jet Trainer Aircraft for First Time to U.S. Air Force Air Shows

(Source: BAE Systems, Inc.; issued September 29, 2011)

BAE Systems is sending two Hawk Advanced Jet Trainers to the United States, where it is competing to replace the USAF’s elderly T-30 Talon training jets. (BAE photo)

ARLINGTON, Va. --- BAE Systems, Inc. announced today that two UK Royal Air Force Hawk Advanced Jet Trainers will, for the first time, demonstrate the new Hawk’s advanced capabilities at U.S. Air Force bases across the country.

The Hawk Advanced Jet Training System (AJTS) is the most technologically sophisticated version of the successful trainer. More than 900 Hawk aircraft have been sold to date across 18 countries and the aircraft is currently helping produce highly trained pilots around the world. The Hawk has been selected to be the future lead-in advanced jet trainer for the F-35 for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, the UK, Canada, and Australia. USAF Hawk AJTS aircraft will be manufactured and delivered in the United States.

“We look forward to demonstrating the combined capabilities of the Hawk aircraft and associated ground based training systems to the U.S. Air Force and the public at large,” said Robert Wood, Vice President and lead of the U.S. Hawk Advanced Jet Training System Program. “Our Hawk AJTS offering for the U.S. Air Force will be a new variant of the aircraft with avionics and capabilities uniquely tailored to meet future USAF requirements. The current design continues to be the most capable and cost-effective advanced jet trainer – in service, in production and in demand, teaching modern air combat skills for today and tomorrow.”

The aircraft will complement the Hawk AJTS National Road Show, a travelling exhibit that includes video, simulations and interactive demonstrations illustrating the unique features of the integrated training system.

BAE Systems, Inc. is offering the Hawk AJTS as the replacement for the aging T-38 trainer, as part of the U.S. Air Force’s T-X program. BAE Systems, Inc. announced last week that it will prime this pursuit and Northrop Grumman will serve as the manufacturing partner for the new Hawk aircraft.

Bringing the planes to the United States will allow U.S. Air Force personnel to experience hands-on the sophisticated capabilities of the Hawk AJTS and underlines BAE Systems, Inc.’s commitment to meeting the U.S. Air Force’s training objectives. The Hawk aerial display demonstrates the off-the-shelf availability of a proven Advanced Jet Training System.

The Hawk AJTS cost-effectively trains pilots of next generation aircraft like the F-35 Lightning II, F-22 Raptor, and the Typhoon. Using synthetic avionics the Hawk can emulate expensive sensor suites and cockpit displays, such as a fully-functioning radar. The system provides pilots unmatched airborne situational awareness and a suite of air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons training tools.

The Hawks also feature advanced data-link systems, night vision imaging capability, and 8G turning performance, and can have an air-to-air refueling capability. A proven, safe, trainer that is ready now, the Hawk AJTS is a perfect fit for the U.S. Air Force’s Air Education and Training Command (AETC) Advanced Phase Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training and Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals.

The two Hawk aircraft and the Hawk Advanced Jet Training System Demonstration Trailer will be on display at the following locations on the following dates:

-- Oct. 1-2: Sheppard AFB Air Show (Wichita Falls, Texas)
-- Oct. 8: Holloman AFB Air Show (Alamogordo, N.M.)
-- Oct. 15-16: Wings over Houston Air Show 2011 – Flight Demonstration (Houston, Texas)
-- Oct. 22-23: Fort Worth Alliance Air Show – Flight Demonstration (Fort Worth, Texas)
-- Oct. 29-30: Randolph AFB Air Show – Flight Demonstration (San Antonio, Texas)

-ends-

buglerbilly

05-10-11, 07:15 AM

Upgrades to keep B-52s flying through 2040

By Dave Majumdar - Staff writer, Air Force Times

Posted : Tuesday Oct 4, 2011 15:29:57 EDT

The Air Force’s venerable half-century-old Boeing B-52 bomber is getting its biggest makeover yet.

A host of ongoing and planned upgrades will keep the 76 jets flying for three more decades, service officials said.

“The B-52, as a bomber, still has a nuclear mission in combination with the Air Launched Cruise Missile,” said Maj. Gen. William Chambers, the Air Staff strategic deterrence and nuclear integration officer. “The continued upgrade of the B-52’s electronics and the effort we have underway for a new cruise missile are both examples of where we’re taking very old systems and making them last longer.”

The planned upgrades total three:

• The CONECT program will put a digital backbone and communications suite into the largely analog aircraft.

• A new 1760 databus architecture will allow the old bird to drop modern smart weapons from its internal weapon bays.

• Strategic radar will replace the B-52’s antiquated 1960s-vintage system.

In the past decade, the B-52 was fitted with the LITENING targeting pod, which allows the crew members to designate their own targets and send video to ground stations.

The various upgrades increase capability and make it easier — and, in some cases, cheaper — to maintain an aircraft with various subsystems and parts that went out of production long ago.

“The airframe itself is very solid, very reliable,” with enough life left in it to fly into the 2040s, said Lt. Gen. James Kowalski, commander of Air Force Global Strike Command.

The Air Force has a plentiful supply of engines, he said.

Digital backbone

Today’s B-52 crews rely on talking to each other to pass weapons and flight data within and beyond their aircraft. CONECT is meant to replace voice with faster, surer machine-to-machine datalinks, said Jim Kroening, Boeing’s B-52 development programs manager.

Based on Microsoft Windows, the new distributed high-speed network will add a line-of-sight Link-16 capability, new Internet protocol-based radios, variable message format system and new satellite communications, Kroening said.

The crew also will get color displays of moving maps that fuse data from off-board sources and present the data in an easy-to-understand format.

“It’s huge situational awareness capability,” he said.

Kroening said the CONECT has completed all but about two flight tests. It will move into low-rate initial production in June , he said, with batches of eight and 10 aircraft to be finished by 2014, he said.

New radar

The CONECT is also meant to ease other planned upgrades, including one for the planes’ main target-seeking radar. The radar, which dates to the 1960s, received its previous major update in the 1980s.

“We’re continuing to evaluate the strategic radar,” Kowalski said. “The mean time between failure is continuing to drop. We’re going to have to replace that at some point.”

The Air Force is looking at an in-production radar, but it would have to be hardened for the nuclear mission. The service would like an active electronically scanned array but may have to settle for a mechanically scanned array because of budgetary constraints.

“It’s going to be an affordability vs. capability tradeoff,” Kroening said.

A competition is expected next year, but risk-reduction work is already well underway. If all goes well, the radar could be installed on the fleet between 2016 and 2018.

1760

The addition of the 1760 databus hardware and associated software would allow the B-52 to carry smart weapons inside its internal weapons bay, said Cathy McClain, Boeing’s B-52 sustainment manager. Currently, the aircraft can carry precision weapons only on its external pylons, which limits the payload and increases the plane’s drag, she said.

Funding for the program’s Increment I should be available in the next three months for work to begin in earnest. By 2015, the aircraft should be able to load into its bomb bay the Joint Direct Attack Munition, Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile and Miniature Air-Launched Decoy.

Increment I will allow crews to load the bay’s rotary launcher with eight weapons of a single type, McClain said.

Increment II will double the number of weapons and will allow them to be mixed and matched, she said.

It also might add the 250-pound Small Diameter Bomb, which would further increase the number of weapons available to the B-52 crew, she said.

The Air Force, she said, hasn’t set a definitive operational date for Increment II.

Boeing is also adding the Sniper targeting pod to the B-52, which will give the plane more flexibility to use available resources, McClain said.

Nuclear deterrence

Though designed and built in a bygone era, the eight-engine jet forms a vital part of the U.S. nuclear deterrent by launching stand-off missiles, Air Force officials said. Since converting its B-1 Lancers for conventional use only, the service’s only other nuclear-capable strategic bombers are in the service’s inventory are its 20 B-2 Spirits.

As part of Air Force plans to keep the B-52 relevant in its nuclear role, Boeing has been asked by the Air Force to support a fly-off for a new air-launched cruise missile, McClain said. The competition will require Boeing to modify the hardware and software of the B-52 to support two cruise missile designs.

The resultant weapon, called the Long Range Stand-off Missile, will be carried operationally on the B-52 and B-2 bombers, replacing the aging arsenal of ALCMs, Kowalski said.

It is part of the Long Range Strike family of systems, which includes the new Long Range Strike Bomber and Conventional Prompt Global Strike, he said.

Stealthy and long-legged, the new missile will enable the B-52 to carry out strikes deep in enemy territory, even though modern radars and weapons mean the old plane would have to do it from stand-off ranges, Chambers said.

“The program is launched in the form of an analysis of alternatives,” he said. “We need the new cruise missile in production in the mid-2020s.”

The analysis will determine whether the new weapon also would be used for conventional missions, but Chambers said that right now, the service has set its requirements correctly.

buglerbilly

13-10-11, 02:13 PM

Air Force Building the Future Force

(Source: U.S Air Force; issued October 12, 2011)

WASHINGTON --- Changes are coming to the Air Force and officials are working with the Department of Defense to prioritize current and future resources as part of a national priority to reduce spending.

In the spring of 2010 the Defense Department began a comprehensive effort to increase efficiencies, reduce overhead costs, and eliminate redundant functions in order to improve the effectiveness of the DOD enterprise.

This effort focused on reprioritizing how DOD can use resources to more effectively support and sustain the total force and most importantly the warfighter.

According to the Secretary of the Air Force, Michael Donley, the Air Force is following that guidance.

"We have been examining the full spectrum of operations -- from base-level to headquarters -- to develop efficiency initiatives that streamline and right-size the organization and redirect resources where we need them most to forge a leaner, more-effective Air Force," said Donley.

Air Force leaders are also focused on shaping the force within the established budgetary guidelines.

"We can't afford business as usual," said Donley. "We are developing new ways of doing business as we build the Air Force of the future." The future force will reflect reductions in some areas and growth in others, he said.

"We will need to reduce overhead and consolidate wherever possible to meet budget targets," said Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. Norton Schwartz. "We will have to make difficult choices."

To begin shaping the workforce to meet future needs, the Air Force implemented hiring controls in May, followed by a 90-day hiring freeze in August, and Voluntary Early Retirement Authority/Voluntary Separation Incentive Program offerings in September. Mandated by the Fiscal 2012 budget, these actions are designed to accommodate the reduced growth in the civilian workforce by allowing the Air Force to consider where new positions will best support future missions and where current tasks need to be eliminated or reduced.

As the Air Force approaches the end of the 90-day hiring freeze in November, and employees approved for VERA/VSIP approach separation by 31 December, the Air Force will consider what additional measures may be required to meet future needs. Air Force members should expect continued workforce shaping measures, affecting military, civilians, and support contractors.

Some of the consolidation and shaping includes organizational changes at the MAJCOM and installation level.

"Air Force organizations and installations of the future may not operate the same tomorrow as they do today," said Schwartz. "In fact, we are considering a restructure of AFMC - our largest employer of civilians - to standardize processes, streamline decision making and align missions for more effective operations. The new structure will focus on reducing overhead costs and redundant layers of management while largely protecting the command's rank and file workforce."

Given the scale of the coming reductions, functional communities are taking a look at their processes seeking opportunities to streamline operations, Schwartz said. Additionally, Air Force leaders have been examining numerous base-level support activities, looking for better ways to support Air Force missions.

According to Schwartz, the Air Force will establish new baselines for many functions across the Air Force.

The Air Force will also focus on providing the essential services members need and taking more advantage of local communities and the valuable services they provide for Airmen and their families. For example, some services commonly available on installations, but are either not financially viable or not often used, may be consolidated or closed in order to redirect resources to other places where Airman and family needs are greater, he said.

The Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force expressed confidence in the ability of Airmen to adapt to change as the Air Force evolves.

"As specifics of these challenges start to take shape, I'm confident our Airmen will exceed all of our expectations," Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, James Roy said. "In the end, we will remain the world's finest Air Force."

"These are challenging times, but we have a unique opportunity to shape the future of America's Air Force, and we are committed to doing everything possible to balance fiscal responsibility with our investments in our people and the nation's defense," said Schwartz. "I have no doubt our Airmen will rise to the challenges before us.

-ends-

buglerbilly

14-10-11, 12:59 AM

Less Spending Drives Big Changes

Oct 13, 2011

By David A. Fulghum, Bill Sweetman
Washington, Washington

If defense budget cuts stay at $450 billion or less, the U.S. Air Force can maintain all its missions and capabilities; however, the service can deliver them only at a reduced capacity, says Lt. Gen. Herbert Carlisle, deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and requirements.

That loss means the service will not be able to duplicate its activities in March, when the Air Force simultaneously supported relief operations in Japan, continued its combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and provided NATO with intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and strike support in the Libyan campaign, says Carlisle. These initial cuts also will begin to reveal changes in F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) missions and possibly aircraft numbers.

But if the cuts go beyond that current fiscal boundary, the effects will be “dire” and require decisions about which missions and capabilities the services will abandon. Those decisions, in turn, will affect how the military designs its joint-service, AirSea Battle plans, and in particular how it would conduct Anti-Access (flying to a new theater) and Aerial Denial (fighting in a defended theater) operations.

Of particular concern is what the Air Force will do if the Navy decides to give up its stealthy Marine Corps F‑35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing strike fighter and Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (Uclass) programs.

Even in the worst circumstances, “I don’t think we’ll see the Navy totally walk away from the F-35,” says Carlisle. Regardless, “we’ll readjust the force to what the Navy brings to the fight.” Survival of U.S. capabilities after such a “big constriction in resources” would then rest on cross-domain cooperation between services “that go beyond joint” operations to a future strategy dubbed “network integrated attack in depth,” he says.

Airborne missions in denied airspace requiring stealth would shift primarily to the Air Force, which would be undergoing its own reduction in force structure of both fourth-generation aircraft such as the F-15C, F-15E and F-16 and the loss of a smaller number of fifth-generation F‑35A conventional-takeoff stealthy strike fighters.

Air Force manpower will be sacrificed to keep the JSF buy as large as possible, says Gen. (ret.) Mike Loh, former chief of Air Combat Command. “Force structure [also] will take a big hit to preserve F‑35s.” But despite those efforts, the total number of JSFs purchased will shrink as a reflection of an even more dramatic reduction in the rest of the service’s inventory. “That’s a risky business,” he says.

In addition to Congress’s antipathy to the F-35, the JSF’s importance is being threatened by improving air defenses in high-end conflicts and unexpected operational demands for lots of low-cost ISR that has proven so useful during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

During the 15 years of JSF development, the high-end threats needed to prevent deep penetration of enemy air space also have “continued to evolve and become harder and harder” to avoid, says a senior aerospace industry official who was in Washington to hear Air Force leaders discuss the fast-approaching fiscal contraction.

As a result, the F-35 is having its mission tailored to operate outside the range of the most advanced, electronically scanned radars used for next-generation, surface-to-air weapon systems. These include the Russian-developed family of long-range, high-altitude interceptor missiles such as the S-300 PMU2 (SA-20), S-400 (SA-21) and S-500 (Triumfator).

“It is hardly surprising to see potential adversary systems evolving to counter the F-35, since we’ve been loudly announcing for 15 years that allied air combat capability through 2040 will be dominated by it,” says a longtime international aerospace analyst. “At the same time, the U.S. monopoly on stealth has been eroding rapidly. The JSF’s signatures are well understood, hence the revival in very high-frequency radar and the Russians’ continued development of high-power, transportable, missile-guidance radars.”

At the low end of the conflict spectrum, the tools that insurgents use—remotely triggered bombs, cyberwarfare, information operations and secure communications—also have become more sophisticated.

“All the complex things we’ve done in the [war on terrorism] have involved unmanned aerial systems [UAS] and small turboprop aircraft that are very efficient and economical,” the industry official says. “So we have really diverged in where we are going with that [F-35] platform,” he adds. “When you look at those [high- and low-intensity] mission sets, where does the F-35 fit? It doesn’t do either one of those very well.

“We’ve got to rethink the mission set,” he declares. “That’s why LRS [long-range strike and reconnaissance aircraft] is such a big deal right now. Over time we are going to get more overlap, merging and coexistence of mission sets. To do that, the sensors have to be smarter and we need multi-intelligence and full-spectrum capabilities that are flexible, adaptable, reconfigurable and affordable.”

Some details of the Osama bin Laden raid in Pakistan reflect how intelligence integration is already making a difference in key operations. Data gathered by the National Reconnaissance Office and other agencies were shaped into new tools. Bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan, the human activity patterns in the compound, and a safe flight route to the site and back to Afghanistan were identified with mapping and imagery data fused by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. The assault team was provided with terrain analysis, flight routes, acoustic modeling (to avoid being heard) and line-of-sight analysis (to avoid being seen), and the best landing zones were identified. Other elements included determining the heights of walls, marking entryways, locating doors and windows and determining how they opened. Data for planning and operations were transferred by Global Hawk UAS specially equipped for high-altitude, long-range, communications relay.

Two other major developments are expected to shape the future of U.S. operations—“smart sensors” that can gather and sort information autonomously, and a much broader, intensive use of the electromagnetic spectrum.

“We’ll look at what spectra provides what information, what threat sets we’re looking for, and how much of the spectrum to look at,” says Neil Peterson, director of business development for Raytheon’s intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems. “There’s not enough processing power yet available to manage data without creating a bottleneck, so it’s important to focus on what matters.”

The processes established in the signals intelligence world are now being applied to imagery bands and low-frequency communications. While the whole spectrum can be exploited, it has to be made manageable.

“You begin with the mission and the threat sets, and then design around them,” says Peterson. “The question is whether you are exploiting the right bands, because the broader the band, the greater the expense. How do I develop the right band for the front-end receiver and then what are the smart algorithms, processing and exploitation tools that I put behind it that allow the operator to do the mission?”

Another key element is to convert algorithm-building from an art to a science. “We have to define and understand the work flow and work load for activities of interest and transform the data into actionable intelligence,” he says. “We’ve got to understand how something works so we can break it down and develop the . . . tools sets that make the first cut in sorting out important data. That’s how we can reduce an overwhelming 10,000 targets to 100 that I can manage.”

Emerging demands—such as the ability of some new UAS designs to conduct 5-20-day missions—will require extremely reliable technologies and weapons with the bottomless magazines that directed-energy devices (lasers or high-power microwaves) can provide.

Photo: Wikipedia

buglerbilly

14-10-11, 07:17 AM

ESC team looks to improve AWACS capabilities

Posted 10/11/2011 Updated 10/12/2011

by Patty Welsh
66th Air Base Group Public Affairs

An AWACS crew member reviews incoming data. A team from the Electronic Systems Center has recently been working to get new capabilities that users have requested onto the AWACS platform. (Courtesy photo)

10/11/2011 - HANSCOM AIR FORCE BASE, Mass. -- A team at the Electronic Systems Center, working in conjunction with the Boeing Co. and personnel from several Air Force, Air Force Reserve and Army bases, is working to get important warfighter-requested capabilities onto the AWACS platform.

During a proof-of-concept demonstration at Tinker AFB, Okla., the AWACS Netcentric-Communications Capabilities team demonstrated three different components from the operational user's detailed Requirement Priority List that would improve the capabilities of a current AWACS Block 30/35.

Getting linked

The first was a Situation Awareness Data Link (SADL). Crews on AWACS have long requested the capability to have onboard connectivity with Air National Guard F-16's, A-10's and other close air support aircraft, including Army aircraft. Currently, this interoperability is only possible through an external ground node "gateway" and voice communications.

"The E-3 uses Link 16, which is not available on the A-10s and ANG F-16s, therefore they can't see the AWACS air picture nor participate in Link 16 communications directly," said Jonathan Lee, AWACS project lead engineer. "SADL lets us use the E-3 as an opportunistic aerial gateway, to augment other fielded gateways to provide direct communication and send the air picture."

Lt. Col. Curtis "Easy" Andersen, an AWACS mission crew commander from the 970th Airborne Air Control Squadron, was impressed with the capability.

"The SADL gateway provides AWACS with the ability to digitize the kill chain with F-16C+ and A-10s, so they can get bombs on target in less time," he said.

And according to Lt. Col Anthony Elavsky, AWACS requirements chief at Air Combat Command, customers want to get their hands on the capability.

"Our customers call SADL a potential game changer at an amazingly affordable cost," he said. "SADL significantly improves our ability to provide C2 to Air National Guard aircraft, Air Force rescue assets, and Joint Forces not equipped with Link 16. SADL improves communications ..., including the passing of critical time-sensitive information ... ."

Seeing beyond and staying connected

Another capability was a Beyond-Line-of-Sight (BLOS) Link 16. According to the priority list, AWACS is often beyond line of sight of the communications range of Link 16 while working with a Combined Air and Space Operations Center.

Using the Joint Range Extension Application Protocol Appendix C , or JREAP-C, and leveraging an Iridium satellite cell phone that was installed recently on the AWACS for secure "chat" capability, during the demonstration, Link 16 information was able to be sent beyond line of sight.

"Once the infrastructure was in place, this was a pretty simple addition," said Peter Kuhl, MITRE chief engineer. "We made some modifications to Link 16 interfaces, added a laptop host for the software and, using the EPLRS radio and Iridium to communicate, even if the AWACS is out of line of sight, the personnel are able to let the AOC know what they are seeing."

The third capability the team looked at was improving the way the Joint Tactical Information Distribution System, JTIDS, is loaded or initialized while in-flight, without shutting the system down.

"Currently, the user has to shut down to change the network load," said Mr. Lee. "It can be very disruptive to have to shut down the main data link, and if it comes back up life is good, but if it doesn't, then you have a problem."

Previous projects provide inspiration

Looking at what already exists and determining if those items could be used in a new way to accomplish the capabilities was key to the work.

"For all three, we looked at synergy," said Mr. Sherman. "We started with the requirement priority list, going through it to see what we might be able to accomplish; who's going to use it, who's flying, and if there's a new and improved way we might communicate."

In addition to looking to ESC program offices, the team partnered with personnel at the Centralized Software Support Activity at Robins Air Force Base, Ga., who modified JTIDS software code and adapted the Roll-On BLOS Enhancement (ROBE) gateway manager software and the Diagnostic Support Tool software.

"We don't have to invent something from scratch to get a new capability," said Mr. Sherman. "The team was able to pull together the right combination to make it work, providing cost-effective solutions in this day and age of budget cuts."

And the capabilities extend beyond the services. Other uses could be for Homeland Security/Defense-type missions and there has also been international interest.

During the proof-of-concept demonstration, it was shown that all capabilities were working as anticipated. The AWACS 30/35 aircraft was able to provide a bridge for Link 16 communication to share air pictures and command messages with other aircraft participating, such as A-10s, F-16C+s, E-8 Joint STARS, and also an Army Patriot battery. The crew provided BLOS information back to a facility at Hanscom. Also, they were able to change Link 16 network from Air Force to Army without shutting down the system during air refueling operations. The participants were excited about the results.

"This allows us to give users three new important capabilities that can be brought onto the aircraft with a minimal set of equipment," said Mr. Lee. "Kudos go out to the team who were able to think outside the box, identify technology synergies and ... introduce these capabilities near term and in a cost-effective way. The users were quite satisfied and they're hungry for more."

buglerbilly

15-10-11, 01:48 PM

AEDC sets record with largest aircraft model to conduct B-52H store separation test

Posted 10/10/2011 Updated 10/10/2011

by Philip Lorenz III
AEDC/PA

From right, former AEDC Commander Col. Michael Panarisi showed visiting AFMC Commander Gen. Donald Hoffman and his wife, Jacki, a 10-percent scale wing section of a B-52H Stratocaster test article, the largest model ever fabricated at AEDC for a ground test. (Photo by Rick Goodfriend)

10/10/2011 - ARNOLD AIR FORCE BASE, Tenn. -- The Air Force's oldest legacy bomber still in service, the B-52H Stratofortress, is in the midst of major weapons and flight systems upgrades, including a capability to drop smart bombs from the plane's internal weapons bay.

AEDC has 40-plus years of store separation experience, but this test entry is unique and challenging in several ways, according to Doyle Veazey, the ATA store separation section manager.

"We have never tested a store separation aircraft model of this size in our wind tunnels," he said. "For that matter, our design group and Model Shop have never fabricated a store separation test article this large."

Work started last November when the B-52H Program Office agreed to fund a wind tunnel test program and the Air Force SEEK Eagle Office provided CAD (computer-aided design) geometry files to AEDC's design personnel.

The Air Force is upgrading the B-52's internal weapons bay to expand the aircraft's payload by roughly two-thirds, according to Lt. Gen. James Kowalski, commander of Air Force Global Strike Command.

"The B-52 delivers the widest variety of stand-off, direct-attack nuclear and conventional weapons in the Air Force and we have been investing in multiple improvements," General Kowalski told an audience recently during a National Defense University Foundation-sponsored address in Washington, D.C.

This effort represents the "most significant B-52 modernization since the [1980s] and will add 21st century capability to the aircraft," Kowalski said.

Major improvements include new flight control software to enhance targeting pod capabilities and incorporate miniature air launched decoys onto the B-52, as well as a modern digital communications system. With progress thus far, General Kowalski said he expects the B-52's combat network communications technology upgrade to enter low-rate production by 2013.

For AEDC's role in the B-52H store separation testing, the design team, led by Scott Wieland, has worked concurrently with projects representatives, who established requirements and shop personnel, all on a highly accelerated timeline.

Since January, AEDC's Model Shop has been busy fabricating and assembling the components making up the approximately 3,400-pound aluminum and steel B-52H model, at 10-percent scale, to undergo store separation testing in the center's 16-foot propulsion wind tunnel in August.

Veazey said the upcoming test will support a more efficient and effective weapons system platform.

"The Global Strike Command has a requirement to put weapons into the weapons bay of the B-52H that historically have not been there, specifically Global Positioning System (GPS) weapons, like the MALD (Miniature Air Launched Decoy), the JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile) and the several variants of JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition)," he said. "The requirement is to carry them internally in the weapons bay. That reduces the aerodynamic drag on the airplane and allows for extended range missions of the B-52H.

"That's one way to get more energy efficient, to bring those weapons internal. It also allows them to carry more weapons on a B-52H. They can load up the wing pylons' two Heavy Stores Adapter Beams and they can load up the new Conventional Stores Rotary Launcher internally."

Safe release of the stores from the aircraft is imperative for a successful mission to protect the crew, avoid damaging the airplane or the stores and accurately strike the targets.

"Bay separations from any airplane are complex and dynamic enough as it is, but when you combine that bay separation with stores that are not necessarily aerodynamically stable to begin with, it just really makes things even more challenging," Veazey said. "Aside from the safety of the crew, the risk to the weapons and the airplane is a real concern."

The primary measurements obtained during a store separation test are the force and moments of the separating store in the flow field of the airplane.

"There will be captive trajectories, pseudo-freestream and aerodynamic grid data that will be acquired, the usual CTS (captive trajectory support) test techniques," Veazey said. "Pseudo-freestream testing means the aircraft model is in the tunnel during CTS store model freestream data acquisition."

If a test article is too large, it can block enough of the airflow in the wind tunnel to adversely affect the test.

"The total blockage of the model is one of the things we were concerned about," said JT Thompson, ATA project engineer.

Veazey said, "It is about 2.2 percent, which is higher than desired from an aerodynamicist's perspective, but for store separation work, that's tolerable. We're using CFD (computational fluid dynamics) to support that engineering judgment."

The test team plans to use one other tool to ensure the stores deploy safely from the B-52H model and that blockage is not an issue with the test.

"One of the things we're looking at using during the course of the test is Background-Oriented Schlieren (BOS), which may help show some flow characteristics around the test articles," Veazey explained. "This technique, installed and operated by ATA Technology personnel, uses a simple optical set-up consisting of a structured background pattern, an electronic camera with a high shutter speed and a high-intensity light source. Then special COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) software is used to process the images and produce the final product.

"This first B-52H store separation effort will result in AEDC employing all its capabilities from planning, design, fabrication, testing, computations and analysis and reporting. Combining that with the ongoing collaboration with the B-52H Program Office, AFSEO and the several weapons program offices and their contractors makes this a truly 'Integrated Test and Evaluation' program."

[I]Paul Haas, B-52 Program Office, Tinker AFB, Druana Sanders, Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc, and Don Arrowood, B-52 Program Office, Tinker AFB, examine the B-52H model’s stores in AEDC’s 16T between store separation test runs. (Photo by Rick Goodfriend)

buglerbilly

18-10-11, 12:31 AM

AFA Cadets Designing Stealth Target Drone

Air Force Academy cadets are designing what could end up being the service’s next stealthy jet. Yup, you read that correctly. Cadets are working on a twin engine, stealthy target drone meant to serve as live-fire targets for F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter pilots.

While the service is already replacing its ancient QF-4 Phantoms with 1980s-vintage QF-16 Fighting Falcon drones, these unmanned “legacy” fighters don’t pose much of a challenge to fifth-gen fighter jocks. So, cadets are busy designing a cheap but stealthy target drone that could replace the QF-16s.

The 40-foot long plane would have stealthy angles designed to scatter radar beams but would use old GE J85 turbojet engines taken from retired T-38 Talon trainer jets as a way to keep costs down to about $3.5 million a pop, according to the Colorado Springs Gazette. (Hey, the drones are already doomed so why not put old engines on them.) One of the coolest things about the program is the fact that cadets are using a 3D printer to pump out models of the the plane

From the Gazette:

The printer fires a laser into a slurry of plastic resins, building objects microns at a time by hardening tiny amounts of the material. In a few hours, a 1/24th scale model of the plane suitable for use in the wind tunnel emerges, saving days or weeks of construction time.

The plastic models and a larger wooden model have been tested at the academy and at the aeronautics school at the University of Washington in Seattle.

After a series of refinements, data show the plane is almost ready for take off.

The project began about eight years ago when the service asked the Air Force Academy and other design teams to come up with a target drone that would pose a more realistic challenge to fifth-gen fighter pilots. Almost a decade later, only the academy and one other team remain in the competition and the Air Force may declare a winner later this year, according to the Gazette. After that, the design will be sent to an aircraft manufacturer to be put into production.

If only designing combat jets was this easy. Heck, considering the fact that it’s meant to be expendable and won’t need a ton of battlefield sensors built into it this drone may well beat any of the other stealthy jets — like the next-gen bomber or UAVs — that the Air Force is planning on buying into service.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2011/10/17/afa-cadets-designing-stealth-target-drone/#ixzz1b5JtCXGi
Defense.org

buglerbilly

20-10-11, 07:32 PM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

AWACS to Get Unmanned Partner?

Posted by Graham Warwick at 10/20/2011 8:44 AM CDT

The future for the US Air Force's AWACS fleet might not be replacement of the E-3s, or even a new radar, but pairing of the aircraft with UAVs to extend surveillance coverage. This would use a technique known as bistatic radar, where the transmitter (the AWACS) and the receiver (the UAV) are in different locations.

According to a new sources-sought notice, the Air Force Research Laboratory plans to flight-demonstrate the AWACS mission performance improvements enabled by using a UAV equipped with an S-band bistatic radar receiver. This will use a conformal load-bearing antenna structure (CLAS) to enable integration of a very large receiver array on the UAV (see previous post).

Bistatic operation offers several advantages. With the smaller and more survivable UAV passively listening closer to the front line, the AWACS with its powerful active radar can be moved further back over friendly territory. This could be a major advantage in a conflict with China, as it would allow the vulnerable E-3s to stand off, making them easier to defend and to refuel.

Photo: US Air Force

As the AFRL notice alludes, pairing geographically separate active transmitters and passive receivers through bistatic operation also helps with electronic protection. Bistatic operation has been tested before with AWACS, using a ground receiver, under the Bistatic Alerting and Cueing program, which was an outgrowth of DARPA's early-1980s Sanctuary bistatic-radar air-defense system project.

As with everything these days, the idea is not new. US and NATO E-3s have already controlled ScanEagle UAVs in exercises and a "Bistatic UAV Adjunct" was at one time proposed for the AWACS fleet. AFRL's test program may be a step in that direction. The Pentagon's FY2012-2014 Aircraft Procurement Plan, meanwhile, says: "the E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) and RC-135 Rivet Joint ISR aircraft will reach the end of their service lives prior to FY 2041. It is possible that advances in UAS designs will allow unmanned systems to replace those aircraft."

Phase 1 of AFRL's planned program would include development of an operational system concept and definition of a Phase 2 flight test program that would demonstrate the CLAS bistatic-radar antenna, receiver, processor and datalinks on a UAV working with a surrogate AWACS radar.
Comments (1) | Permanent Link

buglerbilly

21-10-11, 02:28 AM

Wed, 19 October, 2011

Pentagon Struggles with Avalanche of Surveillance Data

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Peter B. de Selding

U.S. Air Force Gen. Robert Kehler. Credit: Space News photo by Thomas Kimmell

SAN ANTONIO — The amount of data being collected by U.S. government satellites and aerial surveillance platforms is overwhelming the Pentagon’s ability to process it, a situation that cannot be corrected by hiring new analysts, the chief of U.S. Strategic Command said Oct. 19.

U.S. Air Force Gen. C. Robert Kehler said the storm of data is 1,500 percent heavier than it was just five years ago, while the U.S. government’s ability to process, exploit and disseminate it has increased by about 30 percent.

In an address to the Geoint 2011 symposium here, Kehler said it would take thousands more analysts to handle it all, a prospect he said is “not realistic.”

Kehler proposed two solutions. In the mid-term, he said, analysts should be federated so that an expert in the European theater could be tasked with sifting through data coming from Asia. Currently, he said, analysts are assigned to regions and are not available to other regional U.S. Defense Department commands.

What Kehler called a “globally connected, unified PED [processing, exploitation and dissemination] structure” would use existing analysts more efficiently.

“Let’s bring the information to the analyst, not the analyst to the information,” Kehler said. Neither the geographic location of an analyst, nor the surveillance platform, should be a focus of assigning, processing and disseminating data, he said.

The question remains as to which organization would be given the authority to coordinate image analysis on a global basis.

He said Strategic Command’s Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, which was created in 2005, is one possible home. But he stressed that his office is “not looking for more work” and that perhaps another agency should handle it.

Longer term, he said, it is only through technology that the data stream can be sifted through and then made ready for analysts to evaluate. “Let machines handle the data so that humans can handle the decision,” he said, adding that today’s processing and dissemination network dates from before the Internet.

What should not be done, he said, is to reduce the raw data coming in on the subjects that commanders are already interested in. It’s sure to happen that if five priorities are listed, the most important data will be found in a sixth, he said.

In a separate address, Michael G. Vickers, U.S. undersecretary of defense for intelligence, said that the amount of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance data being produced over Afghanistan today is five times the amount produced over Iraq at the height of the war there.

The data stream, he said, amounts to 53 terabytes per day — the equivalent of 2.5 million full-length films.

Vickers said the terrestrial and satellite bandwidth made available to support that data flow, which is often in the form of full-motion video, has increased by 1,000 percent.

Vickers agreed that the budget crunch facing the Department of Defense will force defense managers “to make tough choices” about where to find economies. Commercial satellite imagery, he said, is economical but cannot substitute for government-operated surveillance spacecraft.

buglerbilly

21-10-11, 02:35 AM

Recon Needs Grow For South China Sea Region

Oct 20, 2011

By David A. Fulghum
Washington

Washington and Beijing continue to eye each other warily as they try to assess if the other is a friend and potential ally or a politically unpredictable and culturally confusing foe.

Distrust is generated by two factors—the uncertainly of world politics and the speed with which technology is changing.

“I would be a lot happier if I knew exactly the intent [of the Chinese,]” says U.S. Air Force Gen. (ret.) Bruce Carlson, director of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). “Theirs is an incredibly modern society, with a military philosophy that goes back 4,000 years. They believe in deception, so I remain concerned.”

A development of great interest is China’s organization of a nascent fourth fleet that is to include the nation’s primary offensive maritime force of aircraft carriers, air defense ships, submarines and high-speed transports. The new fleet—an independent strike force—is under direct command of the Central Military Commission, which makes it a strategic asset on a par with the Army’s ballistic missile force.

“The [Pacific] region presents significant security challenges,” agrees Gen. Gary North, commander of Pacific Air Forces. “Notable in that [prediction] is what capability over time to face China’s increasing engagement and its expansive claims into the South China Sea. Recent incidents have raised tensions among the countries that lay claim [to the largely unpopulated, but mineral-rich area],” he says.

“I also wish I knew North Korea’s intent,” Carlson says. “They are very clever and work hard to deceive us. They are always [readying another surprise]. I have a full-time liaison with the combatant forces [in Asia and the Pacific] to make sure they have every product [they need]. We also work hard with the Global Hawks and U-2s to help [the troops focus] their efforts.”

The U.S., for example, wants to track exports of sophisticated weapons from China and nuclear and ballistic missile technology from North Korea.

The U.S. capability in greatest demand for this type of situation is advanced intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) gathering. That category of assets includes next-generation manned and unmanned bomber and strike airborne platforms. The manned aircraft are expected to serve as standoff intelligence gatherers, while unmanned designs will shoulder the task of penetrating sophisticated detection systems to collect even more-detailed information. Cyberprobing and mapping of foreign networks—which also can be conducted from aircraft—will be one of the new staples of ISR, and, of course, all that gathered intelligence must be fused and retransmitted in real time.

“The need to share [intelligence] is absolute,” says Letitia Long, director of the National Geo-Spatial Intelligence Agency (NGA). “We learned our lesson from 9/11, where we weren’t sharing some information for myriad technical, cultural, legal and policy reasons. We [must share] if we’re going to stay ahead of the opposition.

“Where we’re driving to [in intelligence analysis] is ‘one infrastructure, one desktop’ so [an analyst] can log in at the National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, NRO or NGA from any location and have access to everything for easily collaboration,” Long says.

But concerns about China aren’t limited to the South and East Chinas seas. U.S. commanders regard China’s actions in the Pacific and Africa as sending mixed messages—sometimes threatening, sometimes helpful. U.S. officials focused on Africa believe the Chinese are acting more responsibly than the Russians when it comes to selling advanced military technologies.

Many of China’s military imports to Africa—usually paid for with energy exports—are actually products that help the nations involved and are approved of by the U.S.

“It is very clear that the Chinese are engaged in supporting African militaries with equipment, but I don’t see that as a military competition between us and China,” says Army Gen. Carter Ham, chief of U.S. Africa Command. “For example, the Chinese have provided the Democratic Republic of Congo a number of riverine [water] craft for their security forces. I think that’s helpful. A number of African countries [also] fly Chinese aircraft and operate maritime patrol vessels.”

By comparison, Russian companies have sold top-of-the-line SA-24 man-portable air-defense missile systems (Manpads) to Libya and SA-18s to Eritrea that were subsequently supplied to Somali rebels, who used them to shoot down cargo aircraft. As to Chinese sales of arms to Libya, the evidence is murky.

“It’s uncertain whether China was involved in arms sales to Libya,” Ham says. “The Chinese have been asked. I don’t know the response. I don’t know of any specific instances of the Chinese introducing Manpads to Africa. I know China and other nations have been asked to report sales to allow establishment of an accurate baseline.”

In the forefront of Washington’s ISR buildup in the Pacific is the new reconnaissance Hawk facility at Andersen AFB, Guam, where three Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawks are the only operational aircraft permanently stationed on the island. Planners intend to further upgrade capabilities with introduction of the Block 40 aircraft, which carries the MP-RTIP active, electronically scanned array radar (AESA).

“There’s a lot of water out here, [so] it pays to have the best technology,” says General North. “If you can contribute and fuse information into a database that can facilitate tracking surface platforms, we are enhancing our capability. So we’re anticipating what the MP-RTIP [offers for] day-to-day operations.”

The Guam-based unit will receive the Block 40s in fiscal 2014 and take responsibility for working out the tactics, techniques and procedures for the new sensors. However, the technology will not be linked to a specific situation such as monitoring the disputed South and East China seas.

“Any synthetic-aperture-generated capability for identifying moving objects on the ground or at sea enhances a commander’s ability to [offer] a more-effective mission set and [deliver] more situational awareness,” North says. As to flexibility of basing, “We have the processes in place if we have to put an airplane into a non-primary location for any reason,” he says.

For now, Global Hawk is ideally situated at Andersen because of the unmanned aircraft’s long range and Guam’s status as the western-most extent of sovereign U.S. territory, Air Force officials say. It is also ideally positioned to foster joint operations with the Navy’s unmanned MQ-4C and manned P-8 patrol aircraft.

“I think they have the operational capability to be interchangeable,” North says. “We are already working on how we will interleave and interoperate the platforms . . . to ensure the coverage needed from a theater-wide perspective.”

Other intelligence sources also span the manned-unmanned gap. The AESA will be part of the advanced radars and electronic-attack systems.

“AESA [arrays] across the fleet are going to give us enhanced capabilities,” North says. “In the fighter fleet, particularly, they will allow us to do 21st-century targeting and improve our electronic capabilities as we [watch] development of our adversaries’ countermeasures and electronic jamming.”

Global Hawk’s long endurance solves a lot of problems for operational commanders.

“You don’t have to put the Global Hawk forward to do the mission set,” North contends. “It stays airborne for more than 30 hours. If we need to, we can conduct a demonstration [someplace more distant] or divert to an alternate location and fly it out of there on demand.”

Having Global Hawk on Guam also would allow South Koreans to train with the U.S. if the Asian nation completes its plans to introduce the advanced UAS into its air force.

Seoul is negotiating for delivery of four Global Hawks in 2015-16 as part of a $850 million sale. The Missile Technology Control Regime complications were avoided because the Global Hawk is never armed, a stipulation of many countries and one that allows the U.S. to use foreign bases and airspace. In fact, Japan requested Global Hawk surveillance of areas affected by a devastating earthquake, tidal wave and nuclear meltdown last year.

“The key part of that was the information sharing,” North says. “The data was rapidly fused into U.S. forces, Japan and the Japanese leadership.

[I]Photo: USAF

buglerbilly

22-10-11, 01:37 AM

F-22 Raptors at Langley Grounded After Oxygen Problem

By Jennifer Griffin

Published October 21, 2011

FoxNews.com

All F-22 Raptors at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia have been grounded after a pilot experienced loss of oxygen while flying.

Air Force officials are meeting on Friday to determine whether it is necessary to extend the grounding to the rest of the F-22 fleet. The pilot experienced what is known as "hypoxia," and had to return to base.

America's premier fighter jet has experienced similar problems in the past, though it is not clear what is causing the problem. The Air Force last month brought the jets back into service after a grounding months earlier over oxygen issues.

"There is no conclusive cause or group of causes that has been established for the incidents that prompted the stand down earlier this year," the Air Force said in a statement Friday.

While the Air Force is again using F-22s, the statement said officials are making improvements and pausing when needed.

"Part of our protocol is to allow units to pause operations whenever they need to analyze information collected from flight operations to ensure safety. That is what is happening at Langley at the moment, and we support that decision," the statement said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/21/f-22-raptors-at-langley-grounded-after-oxygen-problem/#ixzz1bSym9Lyr

buglerbilly

24-10-11, 05:36 AM

JBER pauses F-22 flights over oxygen supply concern

Daily News staff and wire reports

Published: October 23rd, 2011 04:55 PM
Last Modified: October 23rd, 2011 04:55 PM

BILL ROTH / Daily News archive 2011
Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson temporarily grounded its 40 F-22 Raptors as a safety precaution after an F-22 Raptor in Virginia appeared to have an oxygen-related problem.

Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson has temporarily stopped flying its 40 F-22 fighter jets after an incident involving a Virginia-based F-22, a JBER spokesman said Saturday.

Air Force officials said an F-22 Raptor pilot at the 1st Fighter Wing at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia appeared to have had an oxygen-related problem while in flight, the Air Force Times reported.

The commander of the 1st Fighter Wing in Virginia issued an order for a temporary stand-down of its stealth jets. The order applied just to Langley.

But JBER is "pausing" flights too as a safety precaution, said JBER public affairs director Maj. Joseph Coslett. The Alaska-based F-22s quit flying Thursday, he said.

Alaska has had no recent incidents with the Raptors, Coslett said.

The temporary halt to flying Alaska-based Raptors is a locally based decision, not like the four-month grounding of F-22 jets around the country that began in May, Coslett said.

"In a pause, they'll take a look at things, then will be allowed to fly," he said. It's not clear when the planes will begin flying out of JBER again.

The national grounding in May was imposed because of at least 12 cases over three years in which pilots reported they didn't get enough oxygen.

The Air Force never figured out the cause of the oxygen deficiency but decided to return the F-22s to flight as of Sept. 21, with increased training of air crews and inspections of the aircraft.

JBER's F-22s had been flying nonstop from September until Thursday, starting with the most experienced pilots, said Coslett. The Alaska fighter jets have had no oxygen-related problems since they resumed flying, he said.

Read more: http://www.adn.com/2011/10/22/2133504/jber-pauses-f-22-flights-over.html#ixzz1bfdVHPc4

buglerbilly

24-10-11, 10:21 AM

There is a mix of USAF and USN content in this story but I've posted it here for simplicity's sake.......

Budget outlook clouds decisions in JSTARS wars

By: Stephen Trimble Washington DC

15 minutes ago

Source:

At the end of 2006, a handful of Lockheed P-3C Orions were spotted carrying a new payload. The US Navy has long tasked its airborne submarine hunters to search for overland targets but this was something new. Within a few months, the payload and the P-3C's new mission were confirmed by navy officials. The aircraft was carrying the secretly-developed Raytheon littoral surveillance radar system (LSRS), meaning the P-3C had entered the exclusive business of detecting targets moving on the ground.

At the beginning of 2007, the US Air Force, which invented ground moving target indication (GMTI) in the late-1980s, was moving in the opposite direction.

Northrop Grumman's E-10A multisensor command and control aircraft was cancelled and the future of its potentially revolutionary sensor - the Northrop/Raytheon multi-platform radar technology insertion programme - was unclear. The air force was left to preserve a fleet of 17 707-based E-8C joint surveillance target attack radar systems (JSTARS) and its APY-7 radar.

© USAF
The air force has a fleet of 17 707-based E-8C JSTARS systems

It must have made USAF leaders uncomfortable to watch the navy continue to develop its GMTI capabilities. In June 2009, Raytheon was awarded a contract to develop a new GMTI radar called the advanced airborne sensor (AAS) for the Boeing 737-based P-8A Poseidon. The navy's next-generation submarine hunter would also have access to a new GMTI radar. Within a year of the AAS unveiling, the USAF had launched a study to consider alternatives to the E-8C JSTARS to perform the GMTI mission. The analysis of alternatives (AoA) study team were asked to consider options including a modernised E-8C, plus other manned, unmanned and even lighter-than-air options. Boeing had shrewdly anticipated the USAF's interest in an alternative to the E-8C fleet. In February 2010, it unveiled the airborne ground surveillance (AGS) concept at the Air Force Association (AFA) symposium. It would be based on a new airframe, share commonality with the Navy's P-8A, and be equipped with the AAS sensor.

Nearly two years later, the AoA team is still at work, having entered a second study phase, but the budgetary outlook for a new-start acquisition programme has changed dramatically since the USAF team began the AoA. Perhaps with the new fiscal reality in mind, Boeing delivered a new sales pitch on behalf of the P-8A AGS at the AFA's annual convention in September. Instead of somehow finding billions of dollars in a declining long-term budget plan, the USAF could start the recapitalisation of the E-8C fleet in 2016. The money would come from retiring six or seven E-8Cs and re-investing the savings in the P-8 AGS acquisition programme.

It would not be the first time the USAF used this strategy. The USAF retired 250 fighters in 2010 and applied the operational cost savings to keep up with cost increases in the Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II programme, said Jim Eisenhart, a Boeing senior manager of business development. The USAF also retired six Rockwell B-1B Lancers and used the savings to pay for fleet upgrades.

Northrop, however, argues that a more persuasive strategy is modernising the aircraft the USAF already has. "If you look at the environment we're in, it's fiscally constrained and potentially contracting," said David Nagy, vice-president of the JSTARS integrated product team. "In that environment, my own opinion is, if you've got a solid weapon system and it's proven, then the marginal investments you make is best made in a platform like that for the future. You don't have to recaptialise. For an incremental expenditure, make what you have significantly more capable."

DEPOT-LEVEL SUPPROT

The E-8C does require marginal investments to remain relevant in the fleet. The cost to operate 707-based aircraft has increased sharply in the past 10 years. Maintaining the E-8Cs' four Pratt & Whitney TF33-102C engines consumes 35% of all depot-level support costs, Nagy said. The USAF started a programme to re-engine the aircraft with P&W JT8Ds, but amid cost overruns the service put the programme on hold as the AoA was launched.

Northrop has also been experimenting with other sensors. The APY-7 radar is designed to detect targets but another aircraft with a camera is often required to positively identify the tracks. Two years ago, Northrop installed the Goodrich MS-177 on the JSTARS testbed. The MS-177 is the latest in the series of optical sensors developed for the Lockheed U-2 Dragon Lady. So far, integrating such a sensor across the JSTARS fleet is on hold pending the result of the AoA. Another upgrade involves adding radar arrays in the cheek stations on either side of the E-8C forward fuselage. "Those aren't huge investments," Nagy said. "It was under $3 billion for the next 15 years on the JSTARS modernisation side to essentially bring to closure all of the key upgrades."

© Boeing
Raytheon won a contract to develop a new GMTI radar for the Boeing 737-based P-8A Poseidon

In the end, billions of dollars are needed to acquire new P-8A AGS's or modernise the E-8C. There might be an alternative and, once again, the navy has made a move first. Faced with the cost of acquiring a special EP-X version of the P-8A fleet to replace the Lockheed EP-3E ARIES II, a signals-collecting aircraft, the navy baulked. Instead, in late July the navy confirmed the EP-3E fleet would be replaced by a mix of unmanned aircraft systems, including the Northrop MQ-4C broad area maritime surveillance aircraft, the unmanned carrier launched airborne surveillance and strike aircraft, and the medium-range, maritime aircraft. Part of the AoA is considering a similar mix of UAS for the JSTARS mission, with the Northrop RQ-4B Global Hawk and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems' MQ-9 Reaper among the leading candidates. The AoA is also considering next-generation technologies to be demonstrated by 2015. That strategy allows the AoA team to consider new technologies such as the Lockheed Integrated Sensor is Structure (ISIS), a high-altitude airship with a radar thousands of times more powerful than anything that can fit on a 707 or 737. Lockheed plans to demonstrate the ISIS airship in 2014. By accepting such a strategy, however, the USAF drops the command and control capability offered by the onboard JSTARS battle management staff. In these lean times, sometimes the best option is preserving the capabilities the service already has.

buglerbilly

24-10-11, 10:54 PM

Alaskan F-22As resume flying but others still grounded

By: Stephen Trimble Washington DC

1 hours ago

Source:

About 40 Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptors have returned to flight status at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER), Alaska, after a four-day grounding.

But 30 more F-22As remain parked at another base as concerns linger over mysterious life support system problems that have sometimes proved a critical risk to pilots for more than two years.

JBER confirms all 40 F-22As based in Alaska are cleared by local commanders to resume flying on 24 October. The JBER F-22As were grounded since 20 October due to a "temporary pause" triggered by reports of life support system problems at Langley AFB, Virginia.

About 30 F-22As at Langley remain grounded as base officials continue to investigate the source of the latest life support system malfunction, which reportedly left one pilot light-headed.

Flight operations for the F-22A fleet are made at the discretion of base commanders. So far, only the JBER F-22As were grounded as a result of the incident at Langley. The Air Combat Command confirms that no other aircraft besides Langley's are stood-down for safety reasons.

Meanwhile, a panel led by retired General Greg "Speedy" Martin is continuing to assess the safety of life support systems, including onboard oxygen generation systems (OBOGS), for several USAF combat aircraft types, including the F-22A and Lockheed F-35A. Martin's panel is scheduled to release a public version of their assessment in November, according to the USAF.

Earlier this year, the USAF grounded all F-22As for four months to investigate several reports of pilots suffering from hypoxia-like systems. An intensive investigation failed to identify the source of the problems, or even replicate the conditions experienced by pilots on some missions.

The USAF returned the fleet to flight status on 21 September, but imposed a new set of safety procedures and continued monitoring of pilots' health.

The F-22A fleet has flown more than 1,300 missions since the return to flight order was approved about one month ago.

buglerbilly

26-10-11, 05:59 AM

Help coming for AWACS in a J-20 era?

By Stephen Trimble on October 24, 2011 2:09 PM

The Boeing E-3A airborne warning and control system (AWACS) is like the binoculars of a fighter formation. By emitting a 3GHz electromagnetic pulse, the E-3A's Northrop Grumman APY-2 radar can spot an inbound fighter at 30,000ft as far as 430nm away. But what if the fighter is stealthy, which means partly that its designed to scatter radar waves in any direction except back to the source? That is the whole idea behind electromagnetic stealth -- a capability almost monopolized by US forces until very recently. The appearance of the Sukhoi PAK-FA and the Chengdu J-20 within the past 20 months is a warning. To detect the most dangerous targets, E-3A soon may need help.

A new concept for addressing precisely this problem appeared late last week. In a 19 October solicitation notice, the US Air Force Research Laboratory asked radar companies if they could develop a new electromagnetic trick. Technically, it's called bistatic target detection. It basically means one aircraft -- in this case, the E-3A -- emits the radar pulse, and the returns are detected by radar receivers operating passively on one or more other aircraft. So the stealthy target scatters the radar waves in different directions, but it still can't hide.

The AFRL wants to demonstrate a bistatic radar system for AWACS using an unmanned air vehicle with a very unique radar antenna. The E-3A operates a giant 24ft by 5ft planar array antenna installed on top of the aircraft like a flying saucer. The AFRL, however, wants the UAV radar receivers to be integrated into the load-bearing structure of the aircraft. It's a concept that's been in development for many years, and it's called Sensorcraft (see picture of AFRL wind tunnel model above). The AFRL solicitation could be a prelude to full-scale development of such a new UAV. On the other hand, it's possible the conformal antenna could be integrated into an existing UAV, such as the Northrop Grumman X-47 or the General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc Avenger.

buglerbilly

27-10-11, 03:14 AM

$24M Awarded to Find Cause of F-22 Oxygen Problem

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 26 Oct 2011 18:47

Lockheed Martin has been awarded an F-22 Raptor sustainment contract for $24 million to find the root cause of the fifth generation air superiority fighter's oxygen system among other things.

The company "is being awarded a $24,363,993 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification for the F-22 Program to provide sustaining engineering and depot partnering task associated with non-destructive inspection organic capability, hypoxia root cause analysis, titanium crack growth, site activation, slider seals, and radar cross section turntable," reads a Defense Department contract announcement posted on defense-aerospace.com.

The release was issued on Oct. 26.

buglerbilly

03-11-11, 02:02 AM

U.S. Air Force To Upgrade 300 F-16s

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 2 Nov 2011 19:06

The U.S. Air Force will upgrade between 300 and 350 F-16C Block 40 and 50 fighters with new avionics and increased airframe life, a three-star general said before Congress.

Testifying Nov. 2, Lt. Gen. Herbert "Hawk" Carlisle, Air Force deputy chief for operations, plans and requirements, also said the service doesn't have enough trained UAV pilots, and that the U-2 isn't quite ready for retirement.

"You hear an announcement fairly quickly from the United States Air Force, we're going to [service life extension program (SLEP)] and avionics modernize probably in the vicinity 300 to 350 F-16s,".

That number could climb to 600 aircraft, Carlisle said, but it is not likely the Air Force will have to upgrade so many jets.

The modernized jets will be crucial to maintaining the Air National Guard (ANG) and Air Force Reserve fighter force. It will also help maintain the Air Force's dwindling arsenal of tactical fighters before the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) becomes operational.

Although the service doesn't yet know when the F-35 will become operational, the aircraft will likely miss the current projected date of 2016. The aircraft will likely become fully operational in 2018, Carlisle said, but the service is not naming an official date until the new master schedule is complete.

There is money in fiscal 2012 budget to develop a modernization program for the F-16, Carlisle said. The Air Force will start developing the avionics modernization plan soon, he said.

Maj. Gen. Jay Lindell, Air Force director of global power programs, said the airframe life of the F-16 would be increased from 8,000 to "at least" 10,000 hours. That would afford the Air Force eight more years of operations using the old aircraft, he said.

"We're looking at capability through the next decade, which would be through 2030," Lindell said.

Each plane would cost $9.4 million, he said, so the Air Force wants to get its money's worth.

The scope of the modernization plan for the F-16 fleet and the fielding of the stealthy new F-35 depends on the forthcoming integrated master schedule for the new jet, Carlisle said. The F-35 will be fielded to ANG units, starting with the Vermont ANG, he said.

With the upgrades, the F-16 could be serving for decades to come.

The Navy and Marine Corps are also working on extending the life of 150 of their F/A-18 Hornets, said Marine Lt. Gen. Terry Robling, the U.S. Marine Corps' deputy commandant for aviation. The upgraded F/A-18s are slated to hold the sea services over until the F-35 becomes operational.

Pilots for UAVs

In his testimony, Carlisle said the Air Force doesn't have enough pilots for its growing fleet of drones. He said the service was on its sixth surge for providing Predator and Reaper combat air patrols (CAPs). But to attain the required 60 CAPs, the Air Force has had to press instructor pilots into active service and shut down its elite Weapons School course for the unmanned planes, he said.

"Our issue today is our ability to train our sensor operators and pilots," Carlisle said.

The Air Force will likely have to ratchet down the number of CAPs to reconstitute its ability to train and field new unmanned aircraft pilots, he said. The community has grown quickly; it is now the single largest group of aviators in the service.

Reconstituting the training force and rebuilding the expertise at the Weapons School will take about a year, Carlisle said. Once the Air Force can rebuild its schoolhouses, the Air Force can get back on track to fielding 65 CAPs as required by the forces deployed in combat.

No Retirement for U-2

Of the Air Force's U-2 spy planes, Carlisle said the Air Force won't be retiring them until a technical shortcoming with the RQ-4 Global Hawk high-altitude unmanned aircraft is resolved.

Although the Air Force plans to replace the venerable U-2 with the new unmanned aircraft, the Global Hawk's sensors are still not capable of measuring up to the standards set by the five-decade old Dragon Lady.

"The Global Hawk, the RQ-4, will be the replacement," Carlisle said. "It is not there yet. The sensors suite is not there. It cannot match what the U-2 does. "

There is a high-altitude transition team, but the U-2 will be maintained until the Global Hawk can match the older plane. With the sensors on the Block 40 Global Hawk, the unmanned plane will "start to get close to that," Carlisle said.

The U-2 will be around through 2014 and 2015, but the Global Hawk should be able to start matching its capabilities by then, he said.

buglerbilly

04-11-11, 02:29 PM

U.S. Air Force Officially Designates Aircraft Flying Battlefield Airborne Communications Node System

(Source: Northrop Grumman Corp.; issued November 3, 2011)

SAN DIEGO --- The two different aircraft platforms that fly the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) system, developed by Northrop Grumman Corporation, have been officially designated by the U.S. Air Force as the E-11A and the EQ-4B.

The Bombardier Global Express BD-700 received the new E-11A designation, reflecting BACN's special electronic mission role. The Northrop Grumman Global Hawk RQ-4Bs modified to host the BACN system have been re-designated as EQ-4Bs.

On Sept. 21, the Air Force awarded Northrop Grumman a $43 million, five-month contract extension to operate, support and maintain two E-11A aircraft and to operate and maintain the BACN payload.

BACN is a high-altitude, airborne communications gateway system that maintains operational communications support 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The persistent connectivity BACN provides improves situational awareness and enables better coordination between forward-edge warfighters and commanders.

"This new designation of the manned and unmanned BACN aircraft reflects a unique aircraft mix that provides theater commanders complimentary capabilities to support the BACN missions," said Claude Hashem, vice president and general manager of the company's Network Communications Systems business at Northrop Grumman's Information Systems sector. "The E-11A business jets provide rapid tactical deployment options, while the EQ-4B unmanned systems provide long endurance and unsurpassed persistence capabilities."

Since the system was first deployed to support Operation Enduring Freedom in October 2008, BACN has flown more than 25,000 operational hours in over 2,500 missions and delivered a mission availability rate of 98 percent.

Northrop Grumman is the prime contractor for the development, fielding and maintenance of the BACN system. The company was awarded the first BACN contract in April 2005 by the Air Force Electronic Systems Center, Hanscom Air Force Base, Mass.

Northrop Grumman is a leading global security company providing innovative systems, products and solutions in aerospace, electronics, information systems, and technical services to government and commercial customers worldwide.

-ends-

buglerbilly

08-11-11, 02:03 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

USAF in the 2020s -- F-15s, F-16s ... and U-2s?

Posted by Graham Warwick at 11/7/2011 10:30 AM CST

Lockheed Martin is making progress with F-35 development, as its latest flight-test update shows, but its customers are grappling with the reality of a five-year delay in developing the aircraft, as a Congressional hearing last week made clear.

Because of the delays, the US Air Force will soon announce a program to extend the service life and upgrade the avionics of 300-350 Block 40/50 F-16s at a cost of $9.4 million per aircraft, Lt Gen Herbert Carlisle, deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and requirements, told Congress.

This will extend their airframe life to 10,000hr from 8,000hr, another eight years of service life keeping the F-16 on the front line until 2030. The life-extension could be expanded to up to 600 F-16s if there are further F-35 delays, but Carlisle said he did not believe the Air Force would have to go that far.

F-35As at Edwards AFB. (All photos: Lockheed Martin)

At the same time, the Air Force may extend the F-15C/D upgrade already way from the 176 aircraft planned to the full 250-aircraft inventory "based on requirements of the future force structure," he said. The F-15C/D upgrade, which includes AESA radar, is intended to keep the fleet viable until 2025-2030.

And don't forget the A-10, which the F-35 is also scheduled to replace. Two-thirds of the Air Force's fleet of 347 already-upgraded A-10Cs are to be rewinged beginning in FY2012, to keep the aircraft in service beyond 2030.

Oh, and it's not just delays with the F-35 that are disrupting Air Force modernization plans. Replacing the U-2 with the unmanned RQ-4B Global Hawk for high-altitude reconnaissance has been pushed back indefinitely. "The U-2 will be maintained for a period of time," said Carlisle, because the capability of the Global Hawk's "sensor suite is not there yet." At least the F-35 can't be blamed for that.

And the picture is little better over at the Department of the Navy. The Navy will have to SLEP 150 F/A-18A-Ds beginning in FY2012 to extend their airframe life to 10,000hr and keep them in service till 2023 to fill in the fighter shortfall caused by F-35C delays. And that's in addition to buying an extra 41 new F/A-18E/Fs through 2014.

F-35C catapult test at NAS Lakehurst

And the US Marine Corps, which is totally dependent on the F-35B to maintain its STOVL capability, has been forced to extend the AV-8B's out-of-service date to 2026, from 2022. No major SLEP is planned; instead the Marines will "focus on sustainment efforts to mitigate significant legacy inventory shortfalls, maintain airframe sustainment and address reliability and obsolescence issues of avionics and subsystems," Congress was told. Issues include unexpected fatigue cracks in the nose landing-gear attachment point.

So the F-35 program may feel it can laud its progress in completing 837 test flights ahead of plan this year, and 1,432 since the aircraft first flew in December 2006. And it may be able to put a big tick against completing 72 vertical landings (VL) during initial F-35B sea trials last month -- and passing the 200 VL mark for the program early in October. But the expensive mess the program delays have caused is only just unfolding.

F-35B short take-off from USS Wasp

buglerbilly

08-11-11, 12:35 PM

China Counterfeit Parts in U.S. Military Boeing, L3 Aircraft

November 08, 2011, 6:43 AM EST

By Tony Capaccio

(Updates with Chinese response in sixth paragraph.)

Nov. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Dozens of suspected counterfeit parts have been installed on U.S. defense equipment from Raytheon Co., L-3 Communications Holdings Inc. and Boeing Co., including aircraft deployed to Afghanistan.

The Senate Armed Services Committee found counterfeit parts -- usually from China -- on at least seven aircraft, including the Lockheed Martin Corp. C-130J transport plane, Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol and L-3 27J Spartan transport.

“Suspect electronic parts from China were installed on military systems and subsystems that were manufactured by Raytheon Co., L-3 Communications and Boeing,” said the memo from the committee’s staff, released yesterday in advance of a hearing today.

None of the examples were connected to instances of lives lost or dramatic failures causing an aircraft crash, Michigan Senator Carl Levin, the committee chairman, said.

Still, the committee staff has “identified lots of places where, unless that correction was made, there was real fear that those kind of disastrous consequences could take place,” Levin said.

China supports the fight against counterfeit goods, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said at a briefing today in Beijing.

“China’s government is actively promoting cooperation in fighting fake or counterfeit goods with relevant authorities in other countries and such efforts are welcome,” Hong said.

Deployed Aircraft

Separately, the Pentagon’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service is investigating approximately 40 cases involving various counterfeit items, Assistant Pentagon Inspector General for Investigative Operations James Ives said in an e-mail. The agency is conducting 225 investigations “involving potentially defective or substandard parts and components,” he said.

“The cases may involve counterfeits or improperly made parts,” Ives said.

Two new L-3 Air Force C-27J Spartans deployed to Afghanistan have displays with suspect parts, according to the committee. L3’s Integrated Systems unit notified the Air Force on Sept. 19 that 38 suspect video memory chips were installed in the display units on eight of the first 11 aircraft delivered.

Memory Chip Risks

The L-3 unit that made the displays learned of the suspect memory chips in November 2010, the memo said. The committee traced the chips to Hong Dark Electronic Trade in Shenzhen, China, which also delivered an earlier counterfeit part L-3 discovered in October 2009, it said.

The display units are made by L-3 Communications Display Systems and provide pilots with diagnostic data including engine status, fuel usage, location and warning messages.

The C-27J displays were among more than 500 containing suspect Chinese parts sold to the Air Force, Navy and defense contractors for installation also on C-130J and C-17 transport and Marine Corps CH-46 helicopters, the memo said.

“Failure of the memory chip could cause a display unit to show a degraded image, lose data or even go blank,” the memo said.

L-3 spokeswoman Jennifer Barton said the company is “reviewing the matter.”

Serious Problem

“The fact that defective parts are in aircraft that are deployed in Afghanistan is evidence of the seriousness of the problem,” Levin said in an e-mail to Bloomberg News.

The Senate committee’s investigative staff amassed a database with 1,800 cases of counterfeiting totaling about 1 million parts. It scrutinized 100 cases and found that 70 percent of the suspect parts were traced to Chinese firms, according to the memo.

“Nearly 20 percent of the remaining cases were tracked to the United Kingdom and Canada -- known resale points for counterfeit electronic parts from China,” it said.

The panel is considering ways to tighten rules against the counterfeits, Levin told reporters, including requiring the defense contractors to pay for replacing the parts with genuine items.

“There’s a lot of possibilities here,” Levin said. “Right now, there is ambiguity in some of the contracts,” he said. “It depends on some extent as to the wording of the contract, whether it is cost-plus or fixed price,” he said.

Legislation “will force contractors to tell” their subcontractors and their subcontractor’s suppliers that they need to make sure the parts being sold are legitimate, he said.

“If you out the onus on all of our contractors they will get that message back to their suppliers as well,” he said.

--With assistance from Edmond Lococo in Beijing. Editors: Steven Komarow, Jim Rubin.

To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Capaccio in Washington at acapaccio@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva at msilva34@bloomberg.net

buglerbilly

09-11-11, 12:29 AM

USAF To Extend F-16s To Cover F-35 Delays

Nov 8, 2011

By Graham Warwick

The U.S. Air Force plans to upgrade more than 300 Lockheed Martin F-16s and potentially additional Boeing F-15s to fill the gap caused by delays to the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

The service shortly will announce plans to extend the service life and upgrade the avionics on 300-350 late-model Block 40 and 50 F-16s, Lt. Gen. Herbert Carlisle, deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and requirements, told Congress last week.

The structural and avionics upgrades are projected to cost $9.4 million per aircraft, he said. Extending airframe life to 10,000 hr. from 8,000 will add about eight years of service life and extend the capability of the F-16 fleet to 2030.

The service life extension is required because of delays in developing and fielding the F-35. Initial operational capability (IOC) of the Air Force’s F-35A variant was planned for 2018 but has slipped by about two years, Carlisle said.

The new IOC date will be determined once an updated F-35 integrated master schedule is completed. This is expected “fairly shortly,” Carlisle said. Built on a technical baseline review that extended JSF development by two years, the new schedule will detail how the F-35 will be fielded to replace F-16s and other aircraft in the active Air Force, Air National Guard and Reserve.

Although the Air Force has enough Block 40 and 50 F-16s to upgrade as many as 600 aircraft to cover any fighter shortfall should there be further F-35 delays, “we do not believe we will have to go there,” Carlisle said.

The Air Force is already upgrading 176 F-15C/Ds to operate through at least 2025 and fill the gap left by termination of Lockheed Martin F-22 production after 187 aircraft. “We may extend ‘long-term’ status to the entire 250-aircraft inventory based on requirements of the future force structure,” Carlisle testified.

The F-15s are receiving active, electronically scanned array radars, and both Northrop Grumman and Raytheon have responded to a prior Air Force requests for information to install similar high-performance radars in the F-16.

Photo: USAF

buglerbilly

10-11-11, 01:57 PM

Northrop to fix costly B-2A structural problem

By: Stephen Trimble Washington DC

54 minutes ago

Source:

The US Air Force has decided to fix a key structural problem that has bedevilled the Northrop Grumman B-2A stealth bomber since it was introduced 22 years ago.

Northrop will produce a redesigned metal plate called the aft deck under a $109 million contract awarded by the air force on 21 September, the US-based manufacturer announced.

The metallic aft deck is supposed to shield the composite airframe from the heat and vibration generated by the exhaust of four General Electric F118 engines.

But the aft deck started developing cracks almost as soon as the aircraft started flying, with costly repairs required within 10% of the structure's projected lifetime, according to air force documents.

© US Air Force

Until now, the USAF has been willing to pay the repair costs rather than implement a structural redesign, but the B-2A fleet is already starting to age, driving up the cost of repairs. The average cost to operate a B-2A for 1h has jumped from about $90,000 in fiscal year 2007 to more than $130,000 in FY2010.

As operational costs began spiking, USAF researchers quietly teamed up with Northrop to address the aft deck cracking problem.

In 2008, the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) announced it was developing a system that could accurately model how the cracks formed on the upper surface of the B-2A fuselage.

Two years later, Northrop officials predicted a contract to start producing a redesigned structure was imminent, although the award would be delayed by nearly 18 months.

Northrop has not disclosed the precise changes that are required to prevent the aft deck from cracking prematurely. Last year, company officials said part of the solution involved allowing the heated exhaust to ventilate through the structure.

The AFRL, meanwhile, has released documents describing a new B-2A aft deck design with "intelligent stiffening" techniques. This method overcomes the problem of weakening another area of the fuselage by strengthening the original problem area too much.

It was not immediately clear how much the redesign project would cost. Northrop did not provide details about the $109 million contract, or whether it funded work on just one of the remaining 20 B-2As.

The USAF plans to keep operating the B-2A fleet for the next three decades.

buglerbilly

19-11-11, 01:34 AM

USAF Weighs Future Priority Needs

Nov 18, 2011

By Robert Wall, Amy Butler
London, Washington

New fighters, missiles and missions are the hallmarks of the U.S. Air Force. While these still percolate in long-term plans, near-term fiscal constraints are forcing the service to craft a delicate balance between upgrading existing forces and husbanding funds for new equipment.

Whether even hoping for equipment such as an eventual Lockheed Martin F-22 replacement is delusional or merely prudent is in the eye of the beholder, given the urgency behind debt-reduction talks coming to a head this month in Congress. The reality is that work on the concept, referred to as F-X, is in its infancy. It involves exploring what technologies might be necessary to assure air superiority 20 years from now and 30 years beyond that, says USAF Col. Edward Corcoran, the air superiority core function team leader at Air Combat Command.

Perhaps slightly earlier out of the gate will be a next-generation missile, a notional follow-on to the Raytheon AIM-120D air-to-air missile for internal carriage in the compact weapons bays of the F-22 and F-35 stealthy fighters.

The service also is in talks with the Missile Defense Agency about adding an airborne weapons layer to the country’s missile defense architecture. The goal is to determine the launch platform and interceptor, and whether this is a cost-effective proposition. The jury is still out, but “it certainly looks promising,” Corcoran told the IQPC International Fighter conference in London.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz first inquired about a so-called air-launched hit-to-kill concept in June 2009, when he kicked off an exploratory study. Since then, the service is said to be interested but would like the MDA to cover the development portion. How those interests will be prioritized is part of an Air Force exercise to draw up a master plan intended to be the foundational document for budget decisions from fiscal 2014 and beyond. The finished version is expected in January, allowing time for it to reflect more precisely the scope of budget cuts now being debated that will take effect over the next decade. An example of the financial pressure for the Air Force is its proposal in the forthcoming budget to trim some F-16 and A-10 squadrons from the National Guard, a move to save money but that also adds risk to the service’s ability to conduct missions.

Some spending decisions are mandatory. For instance, the anticipated delay in the operational debut of the F-35A, now not expected until 2018, is forcing the service to upgrade 300-350 Block 40/50 F-16s with service-life extensions and avionics upgrades costing almost $10 million per aircraft, Lt. Gen. Herbert Carlisle, deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and requirements, tells Congress.

The service also is grappling with aging issues on the F-15 fleet. Detailed fatigue trials, ordered after a right-side longeron fatigue-related failure downed an F-15C in 2008, recently unearthed additional cracking in this structure. The situation was deemed non-critical—a fix can be addressed for most aircraft during depot maintenance, says Lt. Col. Kevin Riordan, operational adviser for the system program office. But, the review underscores the fragility of an aging fleet. Some high-time airframes must be repaired more rapidly, he notes, but there is no indication the fleet cannot meet its current service-life projection: 2030 for F-15Cs and 2035 for F-15Es.

Air Force officials say that while F-15s and F-16s are gaining hours supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the missions are not placing high structural demands on the airframes owing to the permissive airspace. Thus, the hours gained are less harsh on the structures than if these missions required high-g air-to-air combat maneuvers.

Another question is where scarce money can best be used to keep the aircraft operationally viable into the future. Software and processor upgrades are likely candidates, as is the active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar upgrade—the APG63(V)3 for the F-15C and APG-82(V)1 for the F-15E. The F-16 will probably receive a small AESA radar.

Still under review is whether to put the Sniper targeting pod already used on F-15Es on the C-model; the move would come after $345 million for an infrared search-and-track system was pulled in the fiscal 2012 budget to save money.
Corcoran notes that for any upgrade now being proposed, program officials must offer an offset to control spending.

Also being considered are long-term upgrades for the newest fighter, the F-22. Near-term upgrades to be fielded in the next five years are already under way, but the service soon expects to define the content of the next package—Increment 3.2C. Potential elements include multi-spectral capabilities to expand the offensive and defensive frequency potential of the fighter, required upgrades such as Mode 5 integration friend or foe, or automatic ground collision and terrain avoidance. Officials are examining how best to share F-22 data, collected by an unprecedented onboard sensor suite, with legacy fighters. Eventually a data-sharing network with F-35s is planned, but delays in the latter’s development have made passing F-22 data to fourth-generation fighters a higher priority.

The first major F-22 enhancement—Increment 3.1—is now entering service, with an initial pair of upgraded stealth fighters recently delivered to Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. Fleet retrofits will continue through 2016 and include the hardware and software modifications needed to drop eight Small-Diameter Bombs, take synthetic aperture radar (SAR) pictures and provide precision location and electronic attack capabilities.

Full operational test and evaluation is still being completed, but Maj. Richard Foster, Air Combat Command requirements officer, says the results are positive. SAR accuracy is 55% better than specified and geolocation accuracy is 15% better. Also, electronic attacks have proven 100% successful in testing.

The F-22 also will get a rudimentary AIM-120D firing capability next year (through the so-called Update 4), although full integration is not planned until Increment 3.2B in 2017. An initial capability to fire the Raytheon AIM-9X dogfight missile also has been accelerated to 2015 (under Update 5), with full integration also to come with Increment 3.2B.

Next on the upgrade path is Increment 3.2A, a software enhancement that includes expanded Link 16 data-link functionality, combat identification and electronic protection. It should emerge around 2014.

Besides the full integration of the latest air-to-air missiles, Increment 3.2B also expands geolocation by 88% beyond what is now being introduced.

In addition, around 2016 USAF expects to have moved to two F-22 configurations, the Block 20 aircraft to be used for training and development and Block 30/35s for the operational fleet. Foster says 36 aircraft will be in the Block 20 standard with 149 to settle on the Block 30/35 configuration.

Photo: DoD

buglerbilly

21-11-11, 01:59 PM

Pentagon Contract Announcement

(Source: U.S Department of Defense; issued November 18, 2011)

Despite having cost over $143 million each, the USAF’s F-22 fighters now require a $40 million upgrade to remain operational, at a total cost of $7.4 billion. (USAF photo)

Lockheed Martin Corp., Fort Worth, Texas (F33657-02-D-0009), is being awarded a not-to-exceed $7,400,000,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract.

This action is for the development of system upgrades to existing requirements, incorporate new requirements, add capability and enhance performance in the F-22 Weapon System.

One firm was solicited and one firm submitted a proposal.

The HQ Aeronautical Systems Center ASC/WWUK, Fighter Bomber Directorate, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (F33657-02-D-0009).

-ends-

buglerbilly

21-11-11, 09:56 PM

More on this..............

Friday Evening's Furtive F-22 Fix

Posted by Mark Thompson Monday, November 21, 2011 at 6:18 am

An F-22 flying what the Air Force says was "an air-to-air combat mission" over New Mexico in September / Air Force photo by John D. Strong II

They say big agencies in Washington, ranging from the White House to the Pentagon, like to dump things they'd rather not have see the light of day late on a Friday. That way, they only appear as a blip in the thin Saturday morning papers, and by Sunday, we're on to new news. That strikes me as way too cynical…until something like this (click on it to enlarge) happens:

Excuse me:

This action is for the development of system upgrades to existing requirements, incorporate new requirements, add capability and enhance performance in the F-22 Weapon System.

Let's check out this statement. First of all, when did the F-22 cease to be an "aircraft" and become a "Weapon System," capital W, capital S? Perhaps the new nomenclature reflects the F-22's status as the world's hottest, most costly fighter.

Secondly, even though this aircraft has been flying – in defense of the nation – since late 2005, it has yet to fly a single combat mission. Afghanistan? Zilch. Iraq? Nada. Libya? No way.

So given that it has never been tested in battle, why is there a need for "system upgrades to existing requirements, incorporate new requirements, add capability and enhance performance"?

Not only has it been grounded for much of the past year – it occasionally fails to give its pilots the oxygen they need to stay alive – but its failure to fly any combat mission over the past six years makes one wonder: why do its capabilities need to be improved and its performance enhanced?

This brings to mind a breakfast I had, along with other reporters, three years ago this very week. It was with John Young, at the time the Pentagon's top weapons-buyer. Let's tap into Peabody's Wayback Machine and listen in:

The recent mission capable data for FY2008 on F-22s had a mission capable rate somewhere in the 62 percent range. I think that's troubling. Follow-on operation tests in 2007 raised operational suitability issues and noted that the airplane still does not meet most of its KPPs. It meets some, but not all. Key performance parameters.

The trend in those operational tests, there was an IOT&E, a follow-on test I think in 2004 and a follow-on test in 2007. The trend is actually negative. The maintenance-man-hours-per-flying-hour have increased through those tests. The last one was a substantial increase.

The airplane is proving very expensive to operate, not seeing the mission capable rates we expected. And it's complex to maintain. In the Air Force I did talk about this a little bit yesterday in the hearing, the Air Force had planned and expected to have kind of a two-tiered structure where some of the earlier jets were not fully capable jets, not to the block 35 or increment 3.2 configuration which provides important capabilities.

I think something like 100 jets would kind of be lesser models. So one thing that's in the budget and I talked about yesterday is to bring more of that fleet, most of that fleet, to a common, high end, capable configuration.

But the cost of that is $6.3 billion of R&D. This is in a platform we've already developed. We're going to spend six billion more of R&D to engineer the 3.2 upgrade for the software and the changes in the jet, and then about $2 billion to modify on the jets. That's $8 billion more, and $8 billion I think needs to be spent in order to make sure the 183 airplanes we have will be highly capable fighters…

Apparently, that's the contract that was awarded Friday night.

Assuming it is, $7.4 billion spread over the 100 or so cut-rate F-22s means each needs something like $74 million in fixes. Seventy-four million dollars. Each. For repairs and upgrades to existing airplanes -- not for a new plane. I'm sure the Air Force will be able to point out how my math is faulty and how the F-22 has kept the nation safe, and will continue to do so.

But that misses the point. On its face, the contract is taxpayer money, money we do not have, to "fix" a 188-plane program costing $67 billion (that's more than $350 million per plane) that has never seen combat, and that has been grounded for much of the past year. We are either suckers, or doomed. Or both.

Read more: http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/11/21/friday-evenings-furtive-f-22-fix/#ixzz1eNYxOrTz

Milne Bay

21-11-11, 10:09 PM

More on this..............

Friday Evening's Furtive F-22 Fix

Assuming it is, $7.4 billion spread over the 100 or so cut-rate F-22s means each needs something like $74 million in fixes. Seventy-four million dollars. Each. For repairs and upgrades to existing airplanes -- not for a new plane. I'm sure the Air Force will be able to point out how my math is faulty and how the F-22 has kept the nation safe, and will continue to do so.

But that misses the point. On its face, the contract is taxpayer money, money we do not have, to "fix" a 188-plane program costing $67 billion (that's more than $350 million per plane) that has never seen combat, and that has been grounded for much of the past year. We are either suckers, or doomed. Or both.

Read more: http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/11/21/friday-evenings-furtive-f-22-fix/#ixzz1eNYxOrTz

So, is this saying that the total cost per plane will now be $350m + $74m = $424m ?
Close to half a billion dollars per plane?

Oh My Dog!

MB

buglerbilly

22-11-11, 08:38 AM

C-27J may be on chopping block

By Marcus Weisgerber - Staff writer

Posted : Monday Nov 21, 2011 8:56:14 EST

Tech Sgt. Erin E. McNamara/Air Force
Instead of the C-27J, pictured, the Air Force would use C-130s to deliver supplies to troops in combat

The Air Force wants to cut the C-27J cargo plane program to save money.

An internal Air Force recommendation to scrap the C-27J program in its yet-to-be-finalized 2013 budget draft has touched a nerve within the Army, which once ran the program, and the Air National Guard, which now operates the twin-turboprop planes.

In the coming weeks, the Deputy’s Management Action Group, or DMAG, led by Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, will direct the Air Force to fund the 38-aircraft program of record or cancel it, according to two defense officials with knowledge of the plans. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about internal budget decisions.

The decision not to continue the program in 2013 is part of a Pentagon effort to cut more than $450 billion in planned spending over the next decade.

If the program is canceled, it is unclear what would happen to the aircraft now being flown in combat by the Air National Guard.

The C-27J program — dubbed the Joint Cargo Aircraft — is now run by the Air Force. The planes are flown by the Air National Guard to deliver critical supplies to troops on the battlefield as needed.

Historically, the Army has flown these missions with the C-23 Sherpa, a Reagan-era aircraft that is reaching the end of its service life. The Army selected the C-27J in 2007. The Pentagon’s original plan called for buying 78 aircraft — 54 for the Army, 24 for the Air Force.

But in 2009, the Defense Department shifted the program to the Air Force, which reduced the planned buy to 38 aircraft. At the time, the Air Force committed to flying the Army direct-support mission. Twenty-one aircraft have been purchased.

The shift was met with skepticism within the Army, where many officials voiced worry that the Air Force would kill the program, much like it did in the 1960s when it took over the Army’s fixed-wing C-7 Caribou program.

“The impact of this decision was bad and immediate,” Air Force Maj. Gen. Tod Bunting and Army Maj. Gen. Jessica Wright, then chair and vice chair of the National Guard Association of the United States, wrote in October 2009.

“Remote bases and outposts found themselves continually running short of supplies because the Air Force couldn’t or wouldn’t fly to the same locations that Army aviators routinely supported with the C-7,” they wrote. “Eventually, the Air Force returned the Caribous and their mission back to the Army.”

During the past three weeks, senior Air Force officials have been hinting at the pending C-27J program termination, defense and industry officials said.

During recent congressional testimony, Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz and Gen. Philip Breedlove, the air service’s vice chief, pledged to support the Army’s direct support mission with either C-27Js or C-130s, built by Lockheed Martin.

“If that mission is to be done with C-27s or C-130s is a decision that is still pending and is a part of this ongoing budget review,” Breedlove said at an Oct. 27 House Armed Services readiness subcommittee hearing. “But that will be worked out in the next few months.”

Breedlove would not specifically address the aircraft in question, but Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the Army vice chief of staff, said his service “is very committed to the C-27.”

“We feel it fills a gap,” he said.

Chiarelli also said the aircraft “provides a tremendous capability for homeland defense, and that is one of the things that was critical about the C-27 and its ability to get into airfields here in the United States that other aircraft can’t get into in the event of homeland defense kinds of missions.”

Schwartz said at a Nov. 2 House Armed Services Committee hearing that any decisions relating to the program’s future would be tied to the DoD-wide comprehensive review that will inform budget cuts across the next 10 years.

Kate Brannen contributed to this report.

buglerbilly

23-11-11, 11:31 AM

US Air Force looks to dramatically extend F-15 service life

By: Stephen Trimble Washington DC

38 minutes ago

Source:

Boeing has launched a four-year structural analysis of the US Air Force F-15 fleet, with the aim of doubling to quadrupling the service lives of the two major variants.

The USAF has also revealed new interest in critical avionics and mission system upgrades for the 40-year-old airframe, as it seeks to keep at least some of its 414 F-15C/D fighters and F-15E fighter/bombers flying for decades to come.

A USAF F-15C fighter has already entered a four-year fatigue test cycle at Boeing's factory in St Louis, Missouri, said Brad Jones, the company's director of F-15 development programmes. It will be joined soon by an F-15E Strike Eagle.

Boeing's tests will determine if the service life of the F-15C/D can be extended from 9,000h to 18,000h, Jones said. The service life of the F-15E was originally set at 8,000h but could potentially be raised to 32,000h after the tests are complete.

If the USAF peacetime annual flight-hour average is set at 300h, the service life increase should keep both models flying for several more decades.

The fatigue tests will indicate possible sources of structural failures. Only four years ago, the USAF grounded its F-15Cs after a longeron failure caused one aircraft to disintegrate in flight. An investigation showed that longeron cracks were limited to a handful of F-15C/Ds, which were immediately retired.

The USAF is also considering a significant capability upgrade for the entire F-15 fleet. The aircraft now rely on three ageing systems for self-defence - the ALR-56C radar warning receiver, ALQ-135 jammer and ALE-45 countermeasures dispenser. On 20 November, the USAF issued a "sources sought" notice for a digital electronic warfare system.

Boeing is already proposing such a system developed by BAE Systems to export customers of the F-15 Silent Eagle.

The self-defence upgrade, which the USAF calls the eagle passive/active warning survivability system (EPAWSS), is included in the service's next five-year spending plan, but funding will not be assured until this year's final budget reviews are complete in January, Jones said.

If funded, the EPAWSS programme will follow USAF F-15 upgrades, including an active electronically scanned array radar and a new core processor, Jones said.

Preserving and upgrading the F-15 fleet would mark a sharp departure in USAF plans. Less than two years ago, Lockheed Martin officials talked openly of replacing the F-15E with the F-35A Lightning II.

buglerbilly

28-11-11, 10:28 PM

F-22 oxygen report delayed for months

By: Stephen Trimble Washington DC

1 hours ago

Source:

The US Air Force has extended by several months a self-imposed deadline for releasing a scientific analysis of the oxygen problems blamed for two groundings of the Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor.

The five-month old oxygen study by a scientific advisory board led by retired General Gregory "Speedy" Martin was due to be released in November, a schedule upheld by the USAF earlier this month.

Three days before the deadline, however, the USAF backed off a firm date for releasing the study. The board "now expects to finalise its complete study this winter," the USAF said without elaborating.

"A releasable report will be made available at that time," the USAF added.

The board is assigned to investigate the F-22's mysterious oxygen problems. More than 20 F-22 pilots have reported hypoxia-like symptoms in the last three years.

So far, the USAF has not been able to pinpoint the source of the problem. The entire fleet was grounded for four months starting on 3 May. Lockheed Martin and USAF officials tried to replicate the hypoxia symptoms during a series of flight tests, but were unsuccessful.

The USAF returned the F-22 fleet to flying status in September, but grounded the aircraft again in October for several days over the same concerns.

The F-22's oxygen system works by diverting bleed-air from the engine compressors. The air is filtered through a molecular sieve contained in a Honeywell onboard oxygen generating system (OBOGS).

A hose leads the air into the cockpit and through a breathing regulator/anti-G valve, which both inflates the pilot's pressure suit and delivers air into a face mask.

ADMk2

29-11-11, 02:32 PM

So, is this saying that the total cost per plane will now be $350m + $74m = $424m ?
Close to half a billion dollars per plane?

Oh My Dog!

MB

No it doesn't cost that much. Peter Goon said it didn't therefore it mustn't have...

And anyway you're being disengenuous. You can't just divide the whole cost of the program by the number of aircraft purchased and assume that's the cost to buy it and then go and tell everyone that. Because that's wrong. Very wrong.

You can only do that in relation to the F-35. It's very right when you do that.

buglerbilly

30-11-11, 02:51 AM

F-15s May Out-Maneuver Sequestration Impact

Nov 29, 2011

By David Fulghum
St. Louis

Even with the F-22 on the ramp, if the F-35 program is delayed or killed, the U.S. and its allies will need more aircraft with a reduced radar signature or the ability to carry standoff weapons at a range to penetrate sophisticated air defenses.

The other requirements for these improved legacy aircraft are the ability to carry conventional and directed-energy weapons, advanced electronic warfare (EW) capabilities and a price tag that is a fraction of a specialized stealth design.

Proponents of the Joint Strike Fighter—including F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin—doubt whether legacy fighters, such as the F/A-18 and F-15 built by rival Boeing, or even Lockheed’s own F-16 could be modified to match the capabilities that the JSF delivers.

Indeed, U.S. Air Force leadership remains adamant about maintaining the ability to take apart sophisticated air defenses, and few officials believe there is any substitute for specialized stealth designs such as the F-22 and F-35.

“To not incorporate the technology that is available to the U.S.—and growing in other nations around the world—does not keep pace with the requirements of today’s fight,” Gen. Gary North, commander of U.S. Pacific Air Forces tells Aviation Week. “What most people don’t understand is the growing increase in land- and maritime-based, surface-to-air missiles [which drive the requirement] to have stealth or reduced-radar-cross-section platforms in today’s world.

“As air-to-air missiles develop longer ranges, the abilities to see an adversary [earlier in an engagement] and to work in an intensive electronic warfare attack environment are critical. Every nation has to decide what it needs for self-defense and how much they are willing to contribute to it,” North says.

But if the stealth fleet becomes too small, it has to be supplemented. That is the niche market being worked by Brad Jones, Boeing’s director of F-15 mission systems. The program spans specialized, low-signature variants such as the Silent Eagle for international customers and upgrades to existing F-15C and F-15E aircraft for the USAF. A shrinking U.S. force structure also is part of the formulation, as is the need for international customers to fly interoperable aircraft in short-notice military emergencies such as the NATO-led Libyan campaign.

A first-order question is whether the F-15 is going to be around long enough to purchase new aircraft or upgrade the existing fleets. The evidence suggests that U.S. F-15s, at least, will still be flying combat missions at mid-century.

With new aircraft production slowing down and being cut, a fighter-shortage “bathtub” is looming, meaning there will not be enough to fill operational and training needs. Right now, the Air Force has about 350 F-15Cs and 222 E-model, two-seat strike aircraft. And the service is trying to move quickly to extend the airframe life of both.

A full-scale, F-15C fatigue test is underway at Boeing with the goal of extending the 9,000-effective-flight-hour life expectancy to 18,000 hr.

The Air Force is now also launching a fatigue test program for the stronger-wing, bomb-truck F-15E from its current 8,000-hr. rating to an effective service life of 32,000 hr.

Boeing has contracts to modernize the aircraft with active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radars that have ranges 2-3 times that of the original 56 nm produced by mechanically scanned radar, say radar specialists. It also has raised the mean time between failures to 2,100 hr. from less than 100 hr.

The APG-82(v)1 radar provides an ability to create high-detail maps for precision targeting of long-range, air-launched weapons. Designed to compound the advantages of the radar is the advanced display core processor (ADCP II) now in development. Moreover, there is a digital EW program in the 2013 budget plan.

“So we can see the Air Force’s thought process,” Jones says. “The ADCP II is being loaded up with processors. That is the basis of what an aircraft needs for modernization. The Air Force is putting a foundation into these aircraft” for an extended operational future.

The F-15 can carry long-range, glide and powered weapons such as the cruise-missile-size Champ, which is critical for electronic attack. Moreover, the F-22s—operating at higher altitudes and deeper in the threat rings—can provide long-range targeting for the F-15s. The F-15s then supply a large off-board magazine of missiles for the F-22s, which can serve as command-and-control aircraft.

The ADCP II boxes, which are common to the U.S. Navy’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, are bolted into the aircraft as structure. The core software also is the same so the services both benefit from upgrades.

Another F-15 upgrade option is the digital electronic warfare system (DEWS). It also has gigabits of data available and ports linking the radar, processors and EW systems. That provides the route for running information from DEWS to the radar and other emitters to tailor jamming and electronic attack.

“From the hardware standpoint, we’re done,” Jones says. “We’re now talking about software upgrades. The EW system could include electronic attack and other options. All the hardware is in the array. We put in everything we can. We’ve added more channels in the array to do the more exotic tasks.”

The possibilities are there to create a data beam, load it with algorithms and identify an enemy electronic target of interest. “All that has been thought of,” Jones says. “We’ve put in the processing power, the channels and the data buses. So what you need is the algorithms and the data base to go in the processor.”

The lower-signature F-15 Silent Eagle—with canted vertical stabilizers, specialized treatments and materials and other aids—is being proposed to South Korea for its FX-3 program.

“We’ve already installed the AESA, incorporated the DEWS and put in fly-by-wire,” Jones says. “All we’re doing extra for [South] Korea is adding a large area display and a conformal weapons bay [for a decreased radar cross section]. But it gives your fighter Day 1, forward-sector stealth. In three hours, you can put the pylons, weapons and fuel tanks on, do your checks and be ready to go. After the special missions are done, you can return to carrying exterior payloads.

“We now have conformal weapons bays,” Jones notes. “The engine face has been considered in the changes. We did not change the engine intakes because that would require changing big structure. An option is grill work over the turbine face that is similar to what like was done with the F/A-18 Super Hornets. For a relatively low amount of dollars you can get a certain reduction in signature.”

buglerbilly

30-11-11, 01:01 PM

Drone Pilots: The Future Of Aerial Warfare

by Rachel Martin

November 29, 2011

Ethan Miller/Getty Images Unmanned aerial vehicles, like this Predator (shown here in 2009 during training at Creech Air Force Base in Indian Springs, Nev.), make up the fastest growing segment of the U.S. Air Force.

To understand how important remotely piloted aircraft are to the U.S. military, consider this: The U.S. Air Force says this year it will train more drone pilots than fighter and bomber pilots combined.

And that's changing the nature of aerial warfare — and the pilots who wage it.

Steve, a lieutenant colonel, grew up wanting to be in the Air Force. And that meant one thing: wanting to be a pilot.

To him, flying is physical: the pull of gravity, the sounds inside the cockpit.

"You hear those things, you feel those things, and you react to them as you need to," he says.

Steve joined the Air Force in 1997 and started out flying F-15s. But he quickly started to see signs that his world was changing. When he was given a chance to fly drones, he took it.

Now, he is at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico helping the Air Force build a different kind of pilot.

The biggest training center of its kind in the United States, Holloman has become the primary training ground for pilots who fly unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones.

There, pilots learn to fly the MQ-1 Predator and the MQ-9 Reaper, two of the military's most important weapons systems. These remotely controlled planes can hover in the air 24 hours at a time, collecting intelligence or carrying out a strike in Afghanistan.

Ali Al-Saadi/AFP/Getty Images
One of the reasons for the shift to unmanned aircraft has been fighter jet budget cuts. Here, a pilot climbs into a U.S. F-16 at Al Asad Air Base in Iraq on Nov. 1.

Ali Al-Saadi/AFP/Getty Images One of the reasons for the shift to unmanned aircraft has been fighter jet budget cuts. Here, a pilot climbs into a U.S. F-16 at Al Asad Air Base in Iraq on Nov. 1.

But the pilots are thousands of miles away, sitting in front of a bank of computer screens. And that distance, which is the strength of the program, has also created unique challenges.

Training For Remote Warfare

The student pilots at Holloman begin their training in simulator bays — small rooms jam-packed with computer processors and monitors. It's there that they first get their hands on the remote controls.

At their workstations, the student pilot sits on the left, the sensor operator — the person who monitors the aircraft and weapons systems — on the right. An instructor loads in images of Afghanistan and gives the assignment: The pilots, sitting in New Mexico, are to fly a drone over Afghanistan, providing an escort for Humvees.

"They're going to scan the route ... that they're supposed to travel on and see if there's any threats to that convoy," an instructor named Matt explains.

Matt, like Steve and every other instructor and student at Holloman Air Force Base, are identified only by rank and first name to help protect their identity because of the "sensitive nature" of the remotely piloted aircraft mission, the Air Force says.

The training program at Holloman started in 2009. Slowly, service members started volunteering to fly the Predator drone.

There are two big reasons for the shift. The first was the Sept. 11 attacks: America's borderless war on al-Qaida catapulted drone technology onto the front lines.

The second reason has been budget cuts: Air Force fighter pilots started to see their squadrons disappear. That's what happened to another lieutenant colonel named Mike. Until a year ago, he was an F-15 pilot. Now, he's also an instructor at Holloman.

"I felt with the F-15 drawdown that that community was closing up, and there'd be more opportunity but also a chance to be part of the fastest growing part of the Air Force," Mike says.

Ethan Miller/Getty Images Mechanics prepare an MQ-9 Reaper for a training flight, Aug. 8, 2007, at Creech Air Force Base in Indian Springs, Nev.

Now, the challenge for Mike, Steve and other instructors at Holloman is to convince students that when they're operating drones, they are flying real airplanes.

A Cultural Divide

After the student pilots have mastered the simulator, they move on to ground control stations out on the tarmac. From these metal rectangular storage containers, the student pilots control Predators and Reapers out on test runs.

A shift can go for hours, until another team comes to relieve them.

Further out on the flight line sits one of the test planes, the MQ-9 Reaper.

Training can be the only time drone pilots actually see the planes they'll fly, says Steve, the instructor.

"You normally just walk out to the container and you sit down and you fly, but you don't actually see this, and you're physically dislocated from where it's at," he says.

Until recently, most drone operators were regular Air Force pilots. Now, the service is reaching out to people who've never even flown before. And that has caused friction within the Air Force as it tries to redefine what it means to be a pilot.

"There's a cultural divide," says Kelly, a 46-year-old Air Force reservist from Texas who is now a student at Holloman. Kelly grew up wanting to be a fighter pilot, but his vision is not good enough for that job. But he can fly drones. And he says that irks fighter pilots who see themselves at the top of the Air Force pyramid.

"Part of it is an ego ... I hate to say an ego trip, but it is," he says.

The Air Force has been working to bridge the divide between these two groups of fliers. First off, drone operators are called pilots, and they wear the same green flight suits as fighter pilots, even though they never get in a plane. Their operating stations look like dashboards in a cockpit.

But all of that has made tensions worse. Aaron is another Holloman student. He used to fix military communications equipment; now he's training to operate drones.

"There's still a lot of animosity. You see people in a conventional aircrew that wonder why we get to wear the flight suits even though we don't leave the ground, why do we need flight physicals, why do we get incentive pay — stuff like that," he says.

Distance Between Pilot And Plane

Steve and Mike, the former fighter pilots turned drone instructors, say the Air Force is going through a cultural change. It all goes back to the distance drones create — between the pilot and his plane. It's something Steve is still trying to make sense of for himself.

"That distance and that separation is there that prevents you from feeling that piece of the airplane, or maybe being as one with the airplane. But what it also does is take the risk out of you flying the airplane, so you don't have to worry about being shot down," he says.

So the very thing that protects these pilots — not being in the cockpit — is what makes them wonder if they're really pilots.

Outside, an F-22 flies overhead — a plane with a fighter pilot in the cockpit. Fighter jets do fly out of Holloman. It helps remind new pilots like Kelly how they are supposed to think of themselves when they're flying a drone.

"I felt like I was actually flying an airplane. I mean, I actually am flying an airplane," he says.

At least that's what he has to tell himself each time he sits at a computer, operating a plane thousands of miles away that he has never seen.

buglerbilly

03-12-11, 12:26 AM

2 More 'Physiological Incidents' Related to F-22

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 2 Dec 2011 16:49

The U.S. Air Force's fleet of stealthy F-22 Raptor fifth-generation fighters has suffered two additional "physiological incidents" since Nov. 21, the service confirmed Dec. 2.

"Since 21 Nov., there have been two physiological incidents and no events of interest," said Air Combat Command spokeswoman Kelly Sanders in an emailed statement.

Since the F-22 returned to flight in September after a four-month grounding, the Air Force has maintained two listings for problems arising from operating the jet. The jet was originally grounded in May after more than a dozen pilots suffered symptoms resembling hypoxia.

"Under the current protocols established to monitor F-22 operations since their return to flight, occurrences are categorized into events of interest and physiological incidents," Sanders wrote. "An event of interest is an aircraft indication, system malfunction or a data point that has not caused symptoms of hypoxia nor caused any danger to the pilot or aircraft, but is noteworthy for data collection and further analysis."

However, because of the Raptor's unresolved oxygen system problems, a separate category has been established for incidents that resemble hypoxia.

"Any event of hypoxia or hypoxia-like symptoms during pre-flight activities or a mission would be categorized by Air Force Instructions as a physiological incident," Sanders wrote.

She noted that none of the most recent incidents caused any damage. Air Force sources who tipped off Defense News to these events had alluded to ground crews becoming ill when performing maintenance operations with the engines running. An Air Force official confirmed that was the case.

"None of these incidents resulted in harm to a person or aircraft," Sanders wrote. "There is a rigorous process of collecting and analyzing operational, maintenance, and physiological data relevant to any incidents, which typically takes several weeks to complete and may or may not produce actionable information."

buglerbilly

04-12-11, 02:27 PM

Elbit Systems wins $38.5 mln U.S. Air Force contract

TEL AVIV | Sun Dec 4, 2011 3:06am EST

TEL AVIV Dec 4 (Reuters) - Israeli defence electronics firm Elbit Systems said on Sunday its U.S. subsidiary, Elbit Systems of America, won a five-year contract worth up to $38.5 million from the Defense Logistics Agency-Ogden.

The contract is for the upgrade of U.S. Air Force F-16 head-up displays (HUD), Elbit Systems said.

The wide angle conventional HUD takes critical flight and mission data that is normally displayed inside the cockpit on an instrument panel and projects that information on a transparent surface directly in front of the pilot, allowing for eyes out of the cockpit and improved situational awareness.

The new design has fewer components, reducing power consumption and extending the average time between failures.

"For the F-16 HUD, we partnered with the U.S. Air Force to develop a solution which significantly reduces life cycle cost," Elbit Systems of America President and CEO Raanan Horowitz said. "This is especially important considering the budget pressures faced these days by the U.S. military."

buglerbilly

06-12-11, 11:49 PM

F-22 Production Line Back on Track: Lockheed

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 6 Dec 2011 17:42

Lockheed Martin's F-22 Raptor production line is back on track after the U.S. Air Force's fleet-wide grounding of the jet had disrupted deliveries to the service, the company said.

Raptor tail number 4183 is seen being delivered to the U.S. Air Force on Nov. 15. (Rita Nicholas-King / Lockheed)

"We are delivering jets," said Lockheed spokeswoman Alison Orne. "The last one delivered was 4185. 4195 will be delivered in late spring 2012."

Tail number AF 09-4185 has technically been delivered with the signing of a DD-250 form, but the stealthy fifth-generation fighter is currently undergoing government flight tests. After the completion of the tests this week, the Air Force's 1st Fighter Wing will fly the jet to Langley Air Force Base, Va., where it will be based.

"It is scheduled to depart for Langley on Dec. 8," Orne said.

The final Raptor to be built, AF 09-4195, will also be delivered to Langley, where it will fly with the 1st Fighter Wing's 27th Fighter Squadron, the service's oldest fighter unit. It is expected to be delivered in Spring 2012, according to Lockheed.

buglerbilly

07-12-11, 12:01 AM

U.S. Army Won't Fight if C-27J Is Canceled

By MARCUS WEISGERBER

Published: 6 Dec 2011 12:22

Its a sick joke this............everyone and his Mother knows C-27J is more cost effective for a whole raft of missions yet again its under threat, and WHY is it going to the Army when at least some elements in the USAF wanted it all to start with?

The U.S. Army is not prepared to fight to keep the C-27J cargo aircraft program alive should an Air Force recommendation to cancel the program be finalized by senior Pentagon officials.

Gen. Raymond Odierno, the Army chief of staff, was briefed in October on options to address the Air Force proposal.

Army aviation officials proposed Odierno insist the Air Force continue conducting direct support missions of critical Army supplies, and the Army National Guard recommended transferring C-27J procurement money and the mission back to the Army, according to a service official.

Since then, the Army backed off the option to reacquire the program, according to a second service official. An Army spokesman declined to comment on the move since the budget has not been finalized.

At the same time, the decision is likely to set up a fight between the Air Force and Air National Guard since a number of Guard wings gave up aircraft over the past few years in anticipation of receiving C-27Js.

The debate between the parties over the future of the C-27J, built by L-3 Communications and Alenia Aeronautica, has intensified in recent weeks in advance of the Pentagon finalizing its 2013 budget proposal, expected to determine the fate of the program.

The Air Force recommendation to cancel the once-joint program in its draft 2013 funding plan has become a hotly contested issue.

Certain lawmakers have voiced opposition to canceling the program, including the entire Connecticut congressional delegation, which wrote Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter urging him to "reject any recommendation to terminate the program or reduce the current [Air National Guard] beddown plan."

The Connecticut air guard has been slated to receive the planes but the Air Force has yet to purchase the aircraft for the wing. Other Air National Guard units are flying the C-27J.

Air and Army Guard officials say the C-27J is the best U.S. aircraft for delivering critical supplies and troops to hard-to-reach places on the battlefield. As the Pentagon's budget shrinks, the officials say it can conduct the so-called direct-support mission at a fraction of the cost of the four-engine C-130.

The C-27J is cheaper to fly than the C-130J and the CH-47 Chinook helicopter, according to Brig. Gen. Mark Bartman, the assistant adjutant general for air in Ohio. Flying one cargo pallet or 10 soldiers in a C-130J costs about $7,100 per hour, while the C-27J can accomplish the same mission for $2,100 per hour.

"It's not to say that the C-130J cannot accomplish the same mission as the C-27J; however, the C-27J is a much more cost-effective, 'right-sized' platform moving forward in the current budget environment, and also gives the Army the greatest amount of flexibility in fixed-wing airlift," Bartman said.

While the Chinook can accomplish the same mission, it is not the best use of the twin-rotor helicopter, according to a former Army division commander.

"We flew some of our CH-47s on routes that should have been fixed-wing routes at a cost in lost combat assault sorties and extended use of the CH-47," the former commander in Afghanistan said.

Since the August deployment of two C-27Js to Afghanistan, the 179th Air Wing of the Ohio Air National Guard has "removed the burden" of forward operating base resupply from the CH-47 fleet, the official said.

The 179th's C-27Js have flown more than 900 sorties, moving more than 6,900 people and almost 400 tons of time-sensitive, mission-critical cargo. Though the C-27J became an Air Force program, the Army's requirement to have organic, direct support airlift did not change.

The Air Force intended to buy 38 C-27Js. National Guard wings in Ohio, Maryland, Michigan and Mississippi are supposed to split the first batch. Other aircraft are set for wings in Connecticut, North Dakota and Montana, but they have not been funded.

The adjutants general from six of those states wrote Carter on Nov. 30 urging him not to cancel the program. A decision to cancel the effort would "negatively impact the National Guard and will weaken our national and homeland defense," they wrote.

The one-time Joint Cargo Aircraft program was turned over to the Air Force in 2009. At the time, Gen. George Casey, then-Army chief of staff, and Gen. Norton Schwartz, the Air Force chief, struck a deal in which the Air Force would receive the C-27J aircraft, but would fly under Army parameters.

The decision was met with skepticism in Army and Air Force ranks. The Air Force typically flies fully loaded cargo planes between hubs, while the Army uses the C-23 Sherpa to move small numbers of troops and equipment to forward locations. The Air Force pledged to fly these "direct support" missions using the C-27J and C-130.

Now under a substantial budget crunch, Air Force leaders have proposed eliminating the aircraft from the service's inventory and conducting the mission with C-130s.

The Army, which led the Joint Cargo Aircraft program, originally intended to replace the C-23 with the C-27J. When it turned the program over to the Air Force, the decision to retire the Sherpa was not reversed, even though many aircraft can fly for another 20 years, one Army National Guard official said. ■

buglerbilly

10-12-11, 12:24 AM

U.S. Air Force Inspecting F-22 Oxygen Systems

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 9 Dec 2011 14:24

The U.S. Air Force is inspecting the emergency oxygen system on its F-22 Raptor air-superiority fighters.

An F-22 Raptor awaits release from a hangar at Holloman Air Force Base, N.M., in September. (Senior Airman DeAndre Curtiss / U.S. Air Force)

Colloquially referred to as the "green apple" by pilots, the system is a self-contained supply of liquid oxygen mounted on the jet's ejection seat and is used in case there is a failure of the main life-support system. By necessity, it is separate from the aircraft's main oxygen systems, which have been under investigation for much of the year due to a string of airborne incidents where pilots have experienced symptoms resembling hypoxia.

"The Air Force is implementing an immediate action time compliance technical order (TCTO) on the F-22 backup oxygen system," a Dec. 8 Air Combat Command (ACC) release said. "This system is known as the Emergency Oxygen System (EOS) and is designed to be used on rare occasions when pilots experience indications or physiological symptoms that suggest there may be a problem with their air supply."

Air Force spokesman Scott Knuteson said that since the Raptor fleet returned to the air in September after a four-month grounding, pilots has been using the backup system more often than usual.

"We have adapted procedures to use the EOS as a precautionary measure to further protect pilots when they receive indications that physiological incidents may occur," the release reads.

However, even then the emergency oxygen system has not been used that often since the jets started flying again, Knuteson said. The pilots only use the system if a problem is detected, he said.

"We have used the EOS on less than one percent of the flights since we returned to flying status and experienced performance anomalies on a small number of EOS activations," the ACC statement reads. "These anomalies have been analyzed by technicians, and corrective measures have been validated and verified."

The inspection was ordered "simply as a prudent step to ensure the full functionality of the EOS given increased usage under current operating procedures," the ACC statement reads.

"As of Dec. 7, approximately 85 percent of the F-22s' EOS bottles had been inspected," Knuteson said. "The main focus of the TCTO is inspecting the EOS bottles and returning them to service."

In the meantime, Lockheed Martin is still delivering new Raptors to the Air Force. One of the newest jets was supposed to arrive at Langley on Dec. 8, but was delayed and will now arrive next week, said Lockheed Martin spokeswoman Alison Orne.

The service currently has 175 Raptors. Of the remaining aircraft to be delivered to the service, tail numbers 4186, 4187, 4189, 4191, 4192 and 4194 will be delivered to Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Va., tail 4188 will be delivered to Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, while tails 4190, 4193 and 4195 - the last Raptor to be built - will be delivered to Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska.

buglerbilly

13-12-11, 12:51 AM

US Air Force orders General Atomics Avenger

By: Zach Rosenberg Washington DC

5 hours ago

Source:

The US Air Force has ordered the General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Predator C Avenger for deployment to Afghanistan. A single aircraft was procured, marking what may be the type's first order.

Though termed a test aircraft, the order fulfils an urgent request by the secretary of defense for reconnaissance and strike assets. Several untested aircraft and systems have been purchased or deployed under urgent operational requirements, including the Northrop Grumman MQ-8B currently operating in Afghanistan.

"This aircraft will be used as a test asset in [redacted] and will provide a significantly increased weapons and sensors payload capacity on an aircraft that will be able to fly to targets much more rapidly than the MQ-9 UAS," says the announcement. "Since it has an internal weapons bay and four hardpoints on each wing it will also allow greater flexibility and will accommodate a large selection of next generation sensor and weapons payloads."

The request for the aircraft was made earlier in 2011, before the crash of a stealthy Lockheed Martin RQ-170 in Iran.

© General Atomics

Despite being jet powered and heavily modified, the Predator C has a high degree of commonality with similar General Atomics systems that are heavily employed by the Department of Defense, including the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper. Specific mention is made of the Predator C's ability to carry 2000+ pounds in payload.

The Predator C, capable of attaining over 400kts (740km/h) and 18,200m (60,000ft), has been flying since 2009 without a customer. A seagoing version, the Sea Avenger, is considered a strong contender for US military programmes, including the Navy's unmanned carrier launched airborne surveillance and strike (UCLASS) programme.

Neither the US air force nor General Atomics were immediately available to comment.

buglerbilly

13-12-11, 12:56 AM

B-52 CONECT system poised for LRIP

12 December 2011 - 17:14 by the Shephard News Team

I'm waiting for the first great, great grandchild to fly one of these..........:thumbsup

Boeing has announced that its B-52 Combat Network Communications Technology (CONECT) is set to receive low rate initial production (LRIP) authorization from the US Air Force (USAF) following completion the test flight programme. According to the company, the flight test programme was conducted at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., by Boeing and the Air Force.

The CONECT modification provides the ability to change a mission, as well as change the target of a weapon, while the B-52 is in flight. The system provides increased situational awareness for B-52 crews by adding several communication data links and full-colour LCD displays with real-time intelligence feeds overlaid on moving maps. CONECT also enables future B-52 improvements with its onboard, high-speed network.

The CONECT programme is now ready to be reviewed by the customer. Boeing expects Milestone C authorisation for LRIP in mid 2012.

buglerbilly

14-12-11, 02:43 AM

Air Force safety magazine gets new website

Posted 12/13/2011

The cover page of the winter 2012 issue of Wingman magazine. (U.S. Air Force graphic/Keith Wright)

12/13/2011 - KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. (AFNS) -- Wingman, the Air Force's official quarterly safety magazine, has a new digital home. Readers can find the current and all future issues of Wingman at www.wingmanmagazine.af.mil.

Due to a Department of Defense initiative for organizations to find greater efficiencies, Air Force Safety Center officials transitioned to the online-only format.

The Air Force Safety Center published its last hardcopy issue of Wingman in fall 2011 and launched a new website Dec. 12 for its award-winning magazine.

"While times are changing and funds are short, we'll never shortchange you - our readers," Maj. Gen. Greg Feest, the Air Force chief of safety, said in the fall issue. "You'll get the same quality of safety information delivered to you online."

With a click of a button, readers can view either an electronic publication, which allows them to turn the pages of the magazines digitally, or download a PDF version, officials said. A Quick Response barcode allows readers to access the Air Force Safety Center's public website www.afsc.af.mil using their smart phones to find the latest safety news.

"Transitioning to a web-based magazine will give us more flexibility with the content, layout and design," said Roberto Guerrero, the Air Force deputy chief of safety. "We're excited about the possibilities."

The Air Force's quarterly journal of aviation, ground, space and weapons safety has been in circulation since 2008 with the merger of Flying Safety Magazine, Weapons Journal and Road and Rec into one magazine. Air Force safety has been producing safety publications for more than 60 years.

Anyone can receive an email notification when a new Wingman is published by entering their email address under "Subscribe" at www.wingmanmagazine.af.mil. Send comments about the site or publication to afsc.semm@kirtland.af.mil.

(Courtesy of Air Force Safety Center)

buglerbilly

14-12-11, 02:51 AM

Posted at 10:48 AM ET, 12/13/2011

U.S. military drone crashes in Seychelles

By Jason Ukman

An MQ-9 Reaper is retrieved after crashing at the airport in Seychelles. (Courtesy Le Seychellois Hebdo)

One of the Air Force’s premier drones crashed Tuesday morning in the Seychelles, the Indian Ocean archipelago that serves as a base for anti-piracy operations, as well as U.S. surveillance missions over Somalia.

The crash of the MQ-9 Reaper comes roughly two weeks after a U.S. drone went down in Iran.

The Seychelles, where U.S. officials have worked closely with local officials to establish the drone base, is hardly enemy territory, and the drone that crashed Tuesday was operated by the Air Force, not the CIA, which operated the stealth RQ-170 that crashed in Iran.

Still, Tuesday’s crash once again illustrates the fallibility of unmanned aerial vehicles.

The Air Force acknowledged the crash at the Seychelles airport, and a spokesman for the service said the crash happened as the drone was landing. No one was injured.

The Air Force said the cause of the crash — the first ever of a Reaper in the Seychelles — was under investigation. A statement from the civil aviation authority in the Seychelles attributed it to engine failure, saying that, after landing, the drone failed to stop before skidding into an outcropping of rocks at the end of the runway.

“It has been confirmed that this drone was unarmed and its failure was due to mechanical reasons,” the statement said. The Air Force confirmed that the MQ-9 was unarmed.

Photos of the Reaper show that it sustained heavy damage, with the nose of the drone carved off and one wing partially missing.

Gervais Henrie, editor of the local Le Seychellois Hebdo, who witnessed a crew lifting the remains of the drone with a crane after the crash, said it had burst into flames. Much of the Reaper appeared charred.

“Totally destroyed,” Henrie said in a phone interview.

The U.S. military is believed to have only a handful of Reapers in the Seychelles, based in a hangar located about a quarter-mile from the main passenger terminal at the airport.

The island nation of 85,000 people has hosted the drones since September 2009. U.S. and Seychellois officials have said the primary mission of the Reapers was to track pirates in regional waters, but they have also been used to conduct surveillance missions over Somalia.

The base in the Seychelles is part of a constellation of drone bases that the U.S. government has expanded in the region to monitor or attack al-Qaeda affiliates.

Hernie said Seychellois often see the Reapers flying overhead, and that they have come to accept them as a a routine part of living in the islands.

The Air Force said the cause of the crash of the MQ-9 was under investigation. (Courtesy Le Seychellois Hebdo)

buglerbilly

14-12-11, 03:02 AM

New Armed Stealth Drone Heads to Afghanistan (And Maybe Iran, Too)

By David Axe Email Author December 13, 2011 | 5:16 pm

The U.S. Air Force is sending a single copy of a brand-new stealth drone to Afghanistan. Only maybe not just Afghanistan.

Officially, the General Atomics-made Avenger — a sleek, jet-powered upgrade of the iconic armed Predator and Reaper — is heading to Afghanistan as a combat-capable “test asset.” The Air Force said in a statement that it loves how the Avenger’s “internal weapons bay and four hardpoints on each wing,” will give it “greater flexibility and will accommodate a large selection of next generation sensor and weapons payloads,” as reported by Zach Rosenberg at Flightglobal.

Problem is, you don’t really need those things in Afghanistan. Internal weapons bays, which hide the radar signatures of bombs and missiles, are for stealth: most warplanes don’t have them. And it’s not like the Taliban has been firing radar-guided missiles at NATO aircraft. Besides, there are already dozens of armed drones in Afghanistan. One more isn’t going to make much of a difference.

Which begs the question: Is the 41-foot-long Avenger really meant for Afghanistan? Or is it destined to patrol over Afghanistan’s unruly neighbors, Iran and Pakistan, both of which do have radar-guided missiles? That was a job assigned to the Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel before one of those drones crashed in Iran two weeks ago. We’re sure the Air Force has a few more RQ-170s to throw at Iran and Pakistan. After all, the elusive ‘bots have been spotted in Afghanistan, South Korea and Japan. But the Avenger, which debuted just two years ago, is newer and more capable than the Sentinel, which is widely believed to be a product of the early 2000s.

The Avenger reportedly carries a ground-mapping radar and the same ultra-sophisticated cameras as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, making it a perfect candidate for quietly snooping above, say, suspected nuclear facilities or terrorist camps guarded by air-defense radars and missiles. And for a psychological impact, there’s nothing like an advanced, armed stealth drone to put a dent in Iran’s swagger after Tehran captured an apparently intact RQ-170.

To be clear: The Air Force isn’t sending the Avenger to Afghanistan specifically in response to the Iranian drone capture. The flying branch initiated the Avenger purchase back in July, long before we saw the Iranian military on YouTube apparently poking at a dinged-up Sentinel in what appears to be a high school gymnasium.

It’s also not a sure bet that the Avenger would even see action in Afghanistan. The air war over Afghanistan is winding down, big time. NATO warplanes dropped just 310 bombs last month, compared to 866 in November 2010, according to U.S. Central Command. High-tech drone reinforcements are a more natural fit for escalating surveillance operations over Iran and Pakistan than for the Afghanistan war.

The Air Force purchase is apparently the first for the Avenger. The swept-wing General Atomics robot is compatible with the same ground-based control systems as the Predator and Reaper (and possibly the RQ-170, as well). It’s likely the Avenger will simply slot into existing Air Force drone squadrons.

Along with Boeing’s X-45C and Northrop Grumman’s X-47B, the Avenger represents the likely backbone of the Air Force’s and Navy’s future killer-drone fleets. But first, the Avenger will ply its secret trade over Iran and Pakistan Afghanistan. Totally.

Photo: General Atomics

buglerbilly

14-12-11, 03:12 AM

Final F-22 Raptor Rolls Off Production Line

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 13 Dec 2011 17:09

The last F-22 Raptor to be built for the U.S. Air Force, tail number 4195, rolled off Lockheed Martin's Marietta, Ga., production line on Dec. 13, bringing to a close the procurement of the stealthy, fifth-generation air superiority fighter jet.

The final Raptor will enter a series of company and government flight tests, said Jeff Babione, Lockheed's F-22 program manager. It also will receive its final coatings - an integral part of the twin-engine jet's stealth capability.

Tail 4195 will then be delivered in May to the 3rd Wing's 525th Fighter Squadron commanded by Lt. Col. Paul "Max" Moga at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. It will become that squadron's "flagship," replacing an earlier loss.

The new jet is the 187th production aircraft to roll off the line; eight developmental Raptors were also built, Babione said. Counting the eight test planes, 4195 is the 195th F-22 to be built, he said.

Once two production aircraft losses are factored in, the Air Force will have 185 operational jets.

"It's sad to see the end of the Raptor, but given the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the state of the economy, it stood little chance," said analyst Richard Aboulafia at the Teal Group, Fairfax, Va.

Babione, who has been with the Raptor program since 1988, said that manufacturing the aircraft has changed drastically since the first test aircraft, 4001, was produced. When that first plane was built, it had the feel of a custom-built, one-off prototype compared with the newest jet that just rolled off the production line, he said.

The workmanship, skills and procedures have come a long way, Babione said. There was a 78 percent learning curve improvement over the years, he said.

Today, "when you see the airplane on the line, it appears to be this very impressive, fine piece of workmanship," Babione said. "You just get this stark contrast from when we started to build them and now."

Lockheed and the Air Force are storing the production-line tooling and preserving the manufacturing know-how, Babione said. While the other F-22 manufacturing sites have been packed up and stored, the Marietta factory has yet to begin crating up the assembly line. That process will start next year, he said.

Aboulafia said there is still hope the Raptor line could be restarted.

"Given the potential of the aircraft, the line preservation efforts, and an uncertain strategic picture, it could one day follow the C-5 or B-1 and be reborn in a few years," he said.

For Lockheed, the shutdown of the production line is simply the beginning of a new chapter of sustaining and upgrading the Raptor.

"This is not the end, rather beginning of a new phase of this great program," Babione said.

A host of upgrades will be coming over the years. The Air Force is already working on adding new capabilities, and part of its Increment 3.1 and 3.2 upgrades will add synthetic aperture radar and the 250-pound Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) capability to the jet. It also will receive the AIM-9X and AIM-120D air-to-air missiles and other capabilities.

Increment 3.1 is a hardware and software upgrade that is focused on air-to-ground missions. This upgrade includes adding the ability to carry eight SDBs, new air-to-ground radar modes, and electronic attack capability. Increment 3.1 is currently being fielded to the operational fleet and will continue to be fielded until all operational Block 30/35 F-22 aircraft are modified by the end of 2016, Air Combat Command spokesman Scott Knuteson wrote in an emailed statement.

"This increment is designed to defeat air or surface threats in any threat environment; operational test and evaluation is nearly complete," Knuteson wrote. "So far, precision geolocation accuracy exceeds the requirement by 15%, synthetic aperture radar (SAR) map accuracy exceeds specifications by 55%, and SDB enables a 200% increase in air-to-ground weapons reach."

Next comes Increment 3.2A, which is a software-only upgrade that includes Link 16 receive capability upgrades, combat identification, and electronic protection. "The plan at this point is to field it between 2014 and 2016 --some jets will transition straight from Increment 2.0 to 3.2A," Knuteson wrote.

Increment 3.2B will include upgraded weapons, such as the AIM-120D, AIM-9X, and enhanced precision targeting, Knuteson wrote. "This is expected to be fielded in 2017-2020."

Lockheed is working closely with the Air Force on upgrading the plane, Babione said.

Operational since 2005, the Raptor was originally envisioned as a counter to hordes of Soviet fighters during a hypothetical conflict over Europe. With this in mind, the jet was designed to be faster and more maneuverable than anything else in the sky.

With its two Pratt & Whiney F119 engines, which produce about 38,000 pounds of thrust each, the Raptor has the ability to cruise at speeds of about Mach 1.8 without afterburners. With its afterburners on, the jet can reach a maximum speed of about Mach 2.2 and fly at 60,000 feet, an altitude limited only by Air Force regulations.

The sheer kinematic performance of the F-22 is unlikely to be equaled any time soon; next-generation aircraft are more likely to focus on weapons.

"The focus in the future will be on improving our weapons and their ability to attack different kinds of targets at extended ranges and intercept even more energetic targets," Babione said.

buglerbilly

15-12-11, 12:20 AM

Buyer’s Remorse: How Much Has the F-22 Really Cost?

By David Axe Email Author December 14, 2011 | 5:00 pm

The 196th and final F-22 Raptor has rolled out of Lockheed Martin’s factory in Marietta, Georgia. That means yesterday marked an end to more than 14 years of production for what’s widely considered the most fearsome jet fighter in history. And also one of the costliest.

So what’s the cost? As little as $137 million per jet and as much as $678 million, depending on how and what you count. The thing is, the best way of calculating the F-22′s cost may be the most abstract. But any way you crunch the numbers, the world’s best dogfighter has also been one of the most expensive operational warplanes ever.

Over the years, the Raptor’s cost has been the subject of intense debate in the Pentagon, the White House, Congress and the media. But advocates and critics tend to quote different figures to serve their various agendas. Fans of the twin-engine fighter usually refer to the “flyaway cost” — that is, how much Lockheed charged the government to piece together each Raptor after all development has been paid for. In other words, just construction spending.

By that reckoning, each of the last 60 F-22s set the taxpayer back $137 million, only slightly more than the roughly $110 million apiece Americans pay for a new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter — a plane specifically designed to be “affordable,” whatever that means. (All figures are in roughly constant dollars.)

Haters cite “unit cost,” which includes development and production spending divided by the number of jets built. F-22 production and development, including currently approved upgrades, totals $74 billion, resulting in a unit cost of $377 million.

And just because the last Raptor left the Marietta factory doesn’t mean the unit cost is fixed at $377 million. If the Air Force ever gets around to adding a long-planned-for datalink, the unit cost could increase slightly. Tweaks to prevent future groundings — like those that occurred this year — would also push the unit cost up.

By contrast, the F-35′s unit cost should stabilize at around $157 million, owing to a massive 2,443-plane production run. That’s assuming the Joint Strike Fighter doesn’t get canceled or curtailed following revelations of new design flaws.

There’s a third way to calculate the F-22′s burden on the taxpayer. “Lifecycle cost” adds up the price of fuel, spare parts and maintenance during the jet’s projected 40-year lifespan. The Government Accountability Office estimates it will cost $59 billion to fix and fly the F-22s until they retire. If you add unit cost and per-plane lifecycle cost, you get the total amount the United States spends to design, produce and operate a single Raptor: a whopping $678 million.

F-35 lifecycle plus unit cost, assuming nothing else goes wrong? $469 million, according to Air Force figures quoted by the GAO.

The fourth and final approach to calculating the Raptor’s price takes into account its effectiveness. It’s a trickier measurement. But it might be the best one to consider. It asks: How much value does the U.S. government get from its investment in F-22s?

While it’s undetectable in isolated flyaway, unit and lifecycle cost figures, value is inarguably important. A cheap used car that never leaves the driveway is, in a real sense, more expensive than a car you pay sticker price for and drive every day.

So consider this: since the F-22 entered service in 2005, every other operational warplane in the U.S. arsenal has seen action in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or other conflict zones. But the tiny fleet of pricey F-22s, optimized for ultra-rare dogfighting missions, missing key upgrades and frequently grounded, hasn’t flown a single combat sortie.

That should be the real source of buyer’s remorse.

Photo: Lockheed Martin

buglerbilly

15-12-11, 12:33 AM

F-22 oxygen system malfunctioned moments before crash

By: Stephen Trimble Washington DC

2 hours ago

Source:

A US Air Force report says the regular oxygen system stopped working before a fatal Lockheed Martin F-22 crash in Alaska last November.

The accident investigation board still blames the accident on the pilot, Captain Jeffrey Haney, who failed to activate an emergency oxygen supply that could have saved his life and the aircraft.

But the failure of an engine bleed air system that feeds the Honeywell onboard oxygen generation system (OBOGS) in the moments before the crash is a new twist in the evolving story.

Only two months after the accident, the USAF internally acknowledged serious concerns about the F-22's oxygen system. In January, the USAF limited F-22s to flying below 25,000 feet. Starting on 3 May, the USAF grounded the entire fleet for more than four months, citing concerns about the pilot's oxygen system.

Although the F-22s resumed flying, the cause of dozens of reported oxygen system failures over several years was never pinpointed.

General Norton Schwartz announced the F-22 return-to-flight order in September. Speaking to reporters during the Air Force Association convention, Schwartz said investigators had "ruled out" the oxygen system as the cause of the F-22 crash last November.

The investigators instead blamed the accident on Haney, who failed to activate the EOS during the 31sec period after his normal oxygen supply became restricted.

The F-22's oxygen supply was automatically cut off after onboard computers detected bleed air was leaking out of the engine bay, which could cause a fire, the report says. The USAF investigators were unable to determine the cause of the bleed air leak.

Shutting down the bleed air system caused the OBOGS to fail, the report says. The OBOGS filters the bleed air through a molecular sieve and delivers the oxygen to the pilot's oxygen mask.

The report concluded that Haney inadvertently pointed the aircraft at the ground while trying to activate the EOS, a procedure that calls on the pilot to pull up on a small ring tucked into the side of his ejection seat.

Fifteen seconds before he crashed, Haney appeared to accidentally enter a sharp, descending right roll that turned the aircraft upside down, the report says.

A pilot assigned to the accident investigation tried to pull the EOS activation ring in a ground simulation, and also moved the stick and the rudder pedals by mistake trying to reach the device.

Haney's night vision goggles and cold weather gear also may have caused him to inadvertently veer off course. To look to the side or down without hitting the night vision goggles on the canopy, F-22 pilots have to brace themselves to shift their torso, the report says.

The investigators ruled out loss of consciousness as a possible cause despite possible oxygen deprivation.

Haney appeared to be conscious the entire flight. Only 3sec before the crash, Haney suddenly attempted a violent pull-up manoeuvre, but it was already too late.

buglerbilly

17-12-11, 12:27 AM

Electronic flight bags could boost operational safety, effectiveness

Posted 12/14/2011 Updated 12/13/2011

by Capt. Kathleen Ferrero
Air Mobility Command Public Affairs

Capt. Brett Pierson refers to a computer tablet during preflight checks aboard a KC-135 Stratotanker aircraft bound for a refueling mission May 8, 2011, in Afghanistan. Pierson is a pilot with the 340th Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron. (U.S. Air Force photo/Master Sgt. William Greer)

12/14/2011 - SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, Ill. (AFNS) -- Improved safety, operational effectiveness and efficiency are just a few reasons Air Mobility Command officials are looking into using tablet devices such as electronic flight bags for aircrew members reference materials in the cockpit during in-flight emergencies.

"Moving from a paper-based to an electronically-based flight publication system will not only enhance operational effectiveness, it can also save the Department of Defense time and money," said Maj. Gen. Rick Martin, the AMC Director of Operations.

In coming months, AMC will be conducting an in-depth analysis of EFB implementation on multiple airframes based on earlier test results from a study at Travis Air Force Base, Calif.

Officials anticipate a final decision on the EFB initiative by early spring with the goal of using the devices across the total force mobility fleet.

As part of the DOD's efficiency efforts, AMC is always on the lookout for innovative, cost-effective solutions that also enhance mission effectiveness, Martin said.

"Electronic flight bags are becoming an industry standard due to their operational, environmental and cost savings benefits," Martin said.

"While AMC's mission is similar to commercial carriers in several ways, we are examining every factor before we make a decision," he said. "We must ensure that the technology not only augments our mission capability, but it would be employed to the maximum extent possible and that we implement appropriate control measures."

According to Maj. Pete Birchenough, who heads AMC's EFB test, the Mobility Air Forces fleet's required flying charts are updated every 28 days.

"This equates to approximately 70 pounds of paper per aircraft each month that must be meticulously sorted, accounted for, and updated," Birchenough said. "Accomplishing this one publication at a time requires considerable manpower and detracts from higher-priority tasks."

Additionally, each crew member's flight bag contains required technical orders, flight manuals and regulations and various other flight-related materials that add weight -- burning fuel on each mission. With air mobility's rigorous operations tempo, the elimination of 70 pounds of paper on each mission over time could add up to serious fuel savings.

"With limited space in the cockpit and the amount of paper that each crew has to manage, it can quickly become controlled chaos," Birchenough said. "An electronic flight bag could solve this issue by putting all information in one place to be recalled and updated almost immediately."

Another likely benefit is the reduction of flight publication printing and distribution costs.

An executive order released by the White House on Nov. 9 promotes efficient spending, partly by cutting printing costs: "Agencies are encouraged to limit the publication and printing of hard copy documents and to presume that information should be provided in an electronic form, whenever practicable."

AMC officials estimate a timely return on investment for EFB tablet devices.

"The Air Force is historically devoted to efficiency, fully supports (the office of the secretary of defense) efforts and is committed to make every defense dollar count," Martin said.

If test results reveal that an electronic flight publication system would enhance operational effectiveness and prove cost-effective, then AMC's next step would be to seek an EFB device that best fits mission requirements.

"This is not a new initiative," Martin said. "(Air Mobility Command) has been looking at tablet and mobile devices for several years as possible tools for increasing mission productivity, decreasing office automation costs and achieving other potential benefits such as portability and flexibility," Martin said.

"As the evaluation process wraps up during the coming months, we're going to scrutinize all information on the table to make the best decision for our operators and our future force," he said.

An aircrew member carries bags filled with flight manuals and regulations into a C-5M Super Galaxy prior to a mission June 5, 2011, at Dover Air Force Base, Del. In an effort to lighten loads like this, Air Mobility Command officials are looking at an initiative of moving from a paper-based to an electronically-based flight publication system. (U.S. Air Force photo/Master Sgt. Scott T. Sturkol)

buglerbilly

20-12-11, 02:34 PM

“Respond to Query Only”

By Nick Schwellenbach | December 20, 2011

Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Brian Ferguson
F-22s over Alaska

Americans often believe government bureaucracy often prevails over common sense. This certainly happened to the Air Force earlier this year, when it sought to avoid embarrassment by curtailing its workforce’s communications with the public — even on a topic that was already revealed in the press.

First, some background. Earlier this year, the Air Force grounded F-22 Raptors due to an official investigation into why its pilots were not always getting enough oxygen. One of those instances occurred in November 2010 when an F-22 crashed in Alaska, killing its pilot. Mark wrote Monday about the accident investigation report, which “blames an F-22 pilot for crashing as he apparently – and vainly – struggled to breathe after his primary oxygen system shut down.” Read that again: the pilot, who was struggling to breath, was blamed. Defense News’s Dave Majumdar closed his story on the report with the line: “Ultimately, the Air Force chose to blame Haney rather than attribute the crash to a malfunctioning bleed-air system and a difficult to use emergency oxygen supply.”

But before this investigation report came out, there was the grounding of F-22s, which was ordered by May 3. The grounding was first reported by the media on May 5.

It’s easy to see why the Air Force didn’t like the story – it was more bad news for the F-22, its favored jet fighter, whose production run was capped at 187 planes a few years ago.

But once the story became public, the Air Force still hoped it would go away, or at least didn’t want to actively generate more news stories on the grounding. Air Combat Command – the part of the Air Force responsible for F-22s – issued guidance on the grounding instructing Air Force public affairs personnel that they were only to be “passive” on this issue. That means they were only to respond to media queries about the grounding, not to actively tell the public and media what was happening even though news stories were already published on the grounding.

Needless to say, this position was already somewhat absurd considering the news was already out. But it gets more ridiculous.

F-22s have appeared in air shows and are a draw for many. Some visitors even drive long distances to see these aircraft fly. Langley Air Force Base in Virginia planned on having F-22s fly in its 2011 AirPower over Hampton Roads open house. That open house occurred May 13-15, about a week and a half after the May 3 order that grounded F-22s. Furthermore, radio and TV segments were actively advertising the F-22s appearance in the air show. Given Air Combat Command guidance, could Langley Air Force Base’s public affairs personnel actively tell the media and the public about the grounding to prevent visitors who wanted to see the F-22 from wasting their time and money?

At least one public affairs employee thought the guidance didn’t make sense.

“If someone fills their gas tank to drive to Langley to see the F-22 because we’ve been promoting it on the web site and TV, only to find the F-22 not in the show lineup — and the Air Force knew it would not fly for a week and said nothing — it would not be a pretty sight,” wrote then-Langley public affairs specialist Richard Haverinen in a May 8 e-mail. “In fact, folks might be very angry.”

Haverinen followed through with his common sense approach. A few days earlier, on May 6, Haverinen escorted two Air Force officers who were to appear on WVEC, a local TV station in Hampton Roads, Virginia, to discuss the upcoming air show. Before the show began, Haverinen “specifically requested show host LaSalle Blanks to ask during the interview if the current F-22 stand down would cancel its appearance in the Langley air show,” according to a May 8 email by Haverinen to several of his co-workers. The host of the TV show asked the question and was told that the F-22 would indeed not be participating in the air show.

Had everything stopped there, I would not be writing this blog post.

When Haverinen’s superiors learned he prompted the TV host to ask the question, they blew their lids.

One Air Force major emailed Haverinen back and said “I don’t think ‘Passive’ PA guidance means you prime the interviewer with a question on the very topic you’re trying to stay passive about. …this could be very VERY bad for us.” That same major, in a separate email responding to Haverinen’s common-sense recommendation to change the public affairs guidance on the F-22 grounding, wrote, “The views expressed below do not reflect the Open House Director’s view on this topic.”

Haverinen also told me that, after the WVEC interview, he suggested the Air Force “should at least correct the broadcast ads, which were erroneously promoting the F-22 demo flight.” The suggestion was rebuffed as it did not fit the model of “respond to query only,” he said.

By May 10, it seemed that reason prevailed. A press advisory from Langley about the May 13-15 air show actively publicized the grounding of the F-22. “The F-22 Raptor will not be performing due to a May 3 command directed stand-down,” stated the press advisory.

But the day after the air show ended, Haverinen was put on notice that he had gone too far. A May 16 “Record of Oral Admonishment” given to Haverinen stated that his boss, “administered an oral admonishment to Richard Haverinen for action occurring on 6 May 2011.” It further states that Haverinen’s “personal decision to release RTQ [respond to query only] information without ACC/PA [Air Combat Command public affairs] approval illustrates lack of better judgment on your part. Such behavior is grounds for disciplinary action if this pattern continues.”

Over the next few months, Haverinen decided he had enough of the absurdity and left the Air Force three years earlier than he had planned. I don’t blame him.

Read more: http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/12/20/62369/#ixzz1h5MSXMP3

buglerbilly

21-12-11, 02:02 AM

U-2 pilot flies final manned ISR mission over Iraq

Posted 12/19/2011 Updated 12/19/2011
by Staff Sgt. J.G. Buzanowski
380th Air Expeditionary Wing Public Affairs

A major lands his U-2 aircraft after completing the final manned ISR flight over Iraq Dec. 18, 2011. Members of the 380th Air Expeditionary Wing have been flying intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions over Iraq to provide senior leaders with the information they need to make decisions. The major, a native of Lake City, Fla., is deployed from Beale Air Force Base, Calif. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. J.G. Buzanowski)

12/19/2011 - SOUTHWEST ASIA -- A U-2 pilot completed the final manned intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance mission over Iraq Dec. 18, as the last American troops withdrew into neighboring Kuwait.

Major Steve Eadie flew his first mission over Iraq during Operation Southern Watch in the early '90s, so it was fitting for the 99th Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron Airman to close out this chapter of his unit's history.

Eadie, deployed from Beale Air Force Base, Calif., said he was proud to be part of this landmark event.

"The best part about it was it was quiet for the folks on the ground," said Eadie, a Lake City Fla., native. "There were no issues as they were leaving so it was a good day. I'm proud to have been a part of it."

As a U-2 pilot, Eadie is responsible for flying missions between nine and 12 hours at a time. The equipment aboard the Dragon Lady, as the U-2 is commonly known, is some of the most sophisticated in the world and provides data for coalition leaders to make informed decisions about any given situation.

"High-altitude ISR has been part of operations in Iraq since Desert Storm, so it feels good to know that what we've done has made a difference for battlefield commanders and troops on the ground," said Lt. Col. Andy Clark, the 99th ERS commander. "It's truly the end of an era."

While this part of their mission is completed, Airmen from the 99th ERS will continue supporting commanders in the field with flights over Afghanistan and other parts of Southwest Asia, as well as supporting units in the Horn of Africa.

"This is the busiest the U-2 has ever been in its storied 56-year career," Clark said. "It amazes me to see what we've been able to accomplish so far. And as long as combatant commanders still need us, we'll keep flying."

A major lands his U-2 aircraft after completing the final manned ISR flight over Iraq Dec. 18, 2011. Members of the 380th Air Expeditionary Wing have been flying intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions over Iraq to provide senior leaders with the information they need to make decisions. The major, a native of Lake City, Fla., is deployed from Beale Air Force Base, Calif. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. J.G. Buzanowski)

A recovery crew inserts wheel struts into the wings of a U-2 after the pilot completed the final manned ISR flight over Iraq Dec. 18, 2011. Members of the 380th Air Expeditionary Wing have been flying intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions over Iraq to provide senior leaders with the information they need to make decisions. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. J.G. Buzanowski)

A major climbs out of his U-2 aircraft after completing the final manned ISR flight over Iraq Dec. 18, 2011. Members of the 380th Air Expeditionary Wing have been flying intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions over Iraq to provide senior leaders with the information they need to make decisions. The major, a native of Lake City, Fla., is deployed from Beale Air Force Base, Calif. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. J.G. Buzanowski)

buglerbilly

21-12-11, 04:20 AM

Upgrade will give C-130J new intel role

By Dave Majumdar - Staff writer

Posted : Tuesday Dec 20, 2011 9:39:45 EST

Senior Airman Kenny Holston / Air Force
Airmen and Army paratroopers load into a new C-130J Super Hercules for the first personnel drop from Ramstein Air Base, Germany. Upgrades to the C-130J will give the aircraft a new role in intellgience-gathering operations.

The Air Force’s efforts to add a camera to its Senior Scout roll-on/roll-off signals intelligence payload for the C-130J Hercules is the culmination of nearly a decade’s work.

The service has aimed to create an array of multi-intelligence platforms that can cover a broad swath of terrain without a dedicated surveillance aircraft.

“This is an idea [former Air Force Chief of Staff Gen.] John Jumper had, to put these on transport [planes] so you could dual-use them” as airlifters or intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms, said Daniel Gouré, an analyst with the Lexington Institute of Arlington, Va.

A transport plane could carry out an intelligence mission while partially loaded with supplies, and if there is an empty return leg, that sortie could be dedicated to a surveillance mission, Gouré said.

Such a capability could be invaluable in Afghanistan, where aircraft equipped with payloads like Senior Scout could free up other assets.

The aircraft would be tasked with general “environmental” intelligence, which would enable more dedicated aircraft to be tasked to their own particular mission set more often, Gouré said.

The Air Force plans to begin flight-testing this month of a new version of its Senior Scout payload for the C-130J.

Originally developed in 1991 by the Air Force’s Big Safari office, the venerable Senior Scout package is being upgraded to work with the C-130’s J variant, as well as with older planes, said Tom Boyce, Lockheed Martin’s manager for airborne collection and exploitation systems.

That version will become operational in the spring, but that is only the first step.

Lockheed is working to add an electro-optical/infrared camera to Senior Scout, in a package that would arrive next year, company officials said.

“In 2012, it will also have imagery capability,” Boyce said.

The capability will be “an enhanced version” of those sensors aboard the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency’s Shadow Harvest program or the Marine Corps’ Harvest Hawk, which puts an infrared sensor ball and weapons kit on a KC-130J tanker, Boyce said.

Unlike Harvest Hawk, Senior Scout won’t carry weapons, he said.

Gouré said that adding weapons adds cost and unneeded complexity.

“It restricts what you can do with it,” he said.

Lockheed can develop such intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance packages quickly and at lower cost because it uses the technology in multiple packages, said Charles Gulledge, the company’s head of business development for airborne reconnaissance systems.

Much of the technology is common to the company’s Dragon family of ISR systems, he said. The new Senior Scout variant is slated to become operational in the spring.

buglerbilly

30-12-11, 02:38 AM

Reaper Pilots in Syracuse Get Counselling

Posted on December 29, 2011 by The Editor

Major Jeff Brown, a spokesman for the 174th Fighter Wing of the Air National Guard, said that in response to the new stress of around-the-clock Reaper missions, the unit has added a full-time chaplain and flight surgeon, as well as a civilian director of psychological health.

Reaper pilots and sensor operators from Syracuse’s 174th Fighter Wing of the Air National Guard participated in a recent Air Force study of job-related stress for crews of remotely piloted aircraft. 30% the operators of unmanned aircraft have high levels of job related stress, mostly linked to long and erratic work hours, the study reported.

The 174th has been flying remotely piloted MQ-9s daily in Afghanistan since 2009. They are controlled from pilot stations at Hancock Field. It has 25 two-person Reaper operating crews, flying combat missions over Afghanistan and new training missions Upstate.

The spiritual and health professionals can seek out crew members who have been supporting ground troops in Afghanistan or crew members can visit the base’s new health and wellness center for spiritual and counseling services.

Reaper shifts have been shortened “to reduce stress and keep the crew fresh,” Brown said. “The crews are educated on ways to mitigate stresses that come with working night shifts.”

The 174th is limiting the time operators fly combat sorties without a break to 2.5 hours at computer operating stations. Operators can fly more than one sortie a day, Brown said.

Wayne Chappelle, a co-author of the study, said Monday that shortening shifts to 50 hours or less and reducing the frequency of shift changes, from every 30 days to every 90 days, would reduce stress by offering more stability.

“One-third of our operators were working over 50 hours a week,” Chappelle said. “The more you worked over 50 hours a week, the higher at risk you were for burnout and clinical distress.”

The Air Force has been studying unmanned aircraft pilots for several years.

Active-duty Air Force members were found to be more than twice as likely as Air National Guard members to report high work-related emotional exhaustion and cynicism. Active-duty members are more likely to work longer hours, be assigned away from home, and face uncertain future assignments.

Source: Syracuse.com

buglerbilly

31-12-11, 02:07 AM

DoD Reliance on Contractors Widens

December 30, 2011

UPI

Hundreds of contractors work in U.S. intelligence and military operations because there aren't enough uniformed personnel for the job, military officials said.

The Los Angeles Times reported Friday U.S. drone operations require so much staffing, civilians have been performing operational functions in the launch of Hellfire missiles, and for-profit corporations have been brought into some of the most sensitive military and intelligence matters.

Citing current and former officers, private employees and government documents, the newspaper said it takes more personnel to operate an unmanned drone than to fly a conventional warplane. The Air Force does not have enough ground-based crew to fly the drones, analyze video and surveillance data, or maintain the aircraft, the newspaper said.

"Our No. 1 manning problem in the Air Force is manning our unmanned platforms," Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, Air Force vice chief of staff, said.

The Air Force says it requires 168 people to keep a Predator drone flying for 24 hours, while the Global Hawk -- a surveillance drone that is larger than the Predator -- requires 300. It takes fewer than 100 people for one F-16 fighter aircraft mission, the report said.

The United States has 230 Predators, Reapers and Global Hawks, and the Air Force runs more than 50 drones daily over Afghanistan and what the newspaper called other target areas. Plans call for acquiring 730 medium and large drones in the next decade, the Times said.

The Air Force has stepped up training of drone pilots in an effort to meet the demand, the newspaper said.

© Copyright 2011 UPI. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

03-01-12, 04:45 AM

Academy eyes cadets’ design for new UAV

By Jill Laster - Staff writer

Posted : Monday Jan 2, 2012 9:08:59 EST

Bill Evans / Air Force
Cadet 1st Class Justin Merrick from the Air Force Academy's Cadet Squadron 20 shows the small remotely piloted aircraft developed in the aerospace lab.

A small drone designed by a group of Air Force Academy cadets could become the Air Force’s newest unmanned aerial vehicle.

Its mission: become a target for F-22s and F-35s to shoot down during training.

The Air Force is considering the small unmanned aircraft along with another one by a contractor.

More than 50 groups of cadets submitted potential designs for the new drone as part of a “capstone course” in 2008, during their final year at the academy.

The academy — along with partners at the Air Force Research Laboratory, the service’s Aeronautical Systems Center and the contractor Sierra Technical Services — has been researching since 2003 what sort of drone the service could use to practice shootdowns.

The Air Force now uses F-4s that have been modified as drones — QF-4s — for that training. F-16s, modified as drones and renamed QF-16s, are scheduled to replace them soon, but using modified fighters could pose a disadvantage.

“It’s possible that other countries will, in the near future, have fighters that are stealthy. The QF-4 and the QF-16 aren’t stealthy,” said Steve Brandt, a professor of aeronautics at the academy. “All U.S. weapons systems have to be tested under realistic conditions before they’re fielded, and if we really think that other countries are going to have stealthy fighter airplanes, then testing those missiles against QF-4s and QF-16s may not be adequate.”

The 2008 design by cadets has remained in the running to become the service’s next drone in large part because it’s so simple, Brandt said. The 40-foot-long drone is stable and sleek, flying with two T-38 engines and a 24-foot-long wingspan.

“The big thing about the cadet design is that it’s simple, which we hope will translate to low cost,” he said. “The whole idea is there’s less components, so it’s going to cost less to build.”

A price for the drone hasn’t been determined yet. A target price is $3.5 million, the cost of the QF-16 in 2009, but that might not be possible, Brandt said.

There’s also no definitive timeline right now for when a design will be selected or when the first new drone could hit the fleet, but Brandt estimates that it will take a while because of the natural pace of aircraft development and the tightening defense budget.

“Trying to see the future is a little hard,” he said. “About all we know for sure right now is that the cadet design has survived a lot of subsequent development and is still pretty much in its original form.”

Cadets haven’t just been involved in the design process. They’ve also been testing drone models in one of the academy’s four wind tunnels. Giving future airmen the ability to work on multiple steps of an aircraft’s development has given them a good beginning to their Air Force careers, Brandt said.

“Because they’re all future Air Force officers, I hope they’ll bring a better appreciation for the role of aircraft design and aircraft companies in creating our Air Force’s capabilities,” he said.

buglerbilly

04-01-12, 03:04 AM

Air Force: Firing For Effect?

By Mark Thompson | @MarkThompson_DC | January 3, 2012

Kale Mosley
Then-U.S. Air Force Major Kale Mosley at the helm of a KC-135 tanker

I can sympathise BUT things change and what was once common is no longer. Try being in Industry where a name change allows them to re-calculate the pension you get and half it, thats what's happened to a whole bunch of people in the UK and elsewhere. Makes me ever so glad I cashed mine while it was still worth something......despite some pension prick telling me I couldn't!

Major Kale Mosley was getting ready to board his KC-135 refueling tanker for Iraq last June when a commander pulled him aside. He was being fired as of Nov. 30, contrary to a long-standing Pentagon policy that lets officers stay in until retirement – and its pension — once they’ve entered their 15th year of service. “Now,” the commander may as well have ordered Mosley, “go fight your nation’s war before we kick you out for good.”

The Air Force has elected to deal with the looming budget cuts facing all the services by moving the goal posts for 157 of its officers who entered their 15th year of service in 2011: traditionally, the services let officers who don’t get promoted in their final six years of duty finish their 20-year Air Force careers as majors. Last year, the service changed that six-year protection to five.

Is this right? Is it fair? Or is it just legal?

The Air Force acknowledges that “normally” officers with less than six years remaining until they are eligible to retire at 20 years are allowed to remain in the service. But currently, under pressure to “meet authorized end-strength levels at a time of record high retention rates,” Air Force Secretary Michael Donley elected to limit such protection only to those within five years of retirement. The Air Force says Pentagon regulations allow him to do this “when the needs of the service dictate it.”

These are the kinds of decisions that are going to become more common as the military pares backs in ranks amid budget cuts and the winding down of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The bloody and vibrant red, white and blue of patriotism in 9/11′s wake can fade to wan pastels when budgets tighten and the public has grown tired of a decade of conflict. And – as anyone who has worn the uniform can attest – there are always little-known loopholes that turn long-believed fact into government-certified fiction when push comes to shove.

The Air Force insists it warned Mosley and officers like him that the service might force them out before they earned the retirement benefits that come with 20 years of service, if they didn’t win promotion to lieutenant colonel. “The Air Force appreciates and values the service and sacrifice of every airman,” adds Lieut. Colonel John L. Dorrian, an Air Force spokesman. “We are committed to easing separation transitions as much as possible.”

But troops like Mosley – due to custom, wishful thinking or informal guidance from superiors – always believed that once they made it to 14 years – within six of retirement – they would be able to stay in until hitting the 20-year mark, when they’d become eligible for a pension. “The Air Force had me playing by a set of rules for my entire career,” he says, “and all of a sudden, because money seemed to get a little tight, they changed the rules.”

These officers came of age during the military’s post-9/11 role, and valiantly stepped forward: Mosley flew nearly 4,000 hours and 269 combat missions in support of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. He and the others caught in this Air Force change of heart feel betrayed by the service many have served for close to 20 years (if they, like Mosley, attended the Air Force Academy).

Mosley’s attorney is Kyndra Miller Rotunda, who is also representing, pro bono, another dozen officers in the same fix as executive director of Chapman University’s AMVETS Legal Clinic in Orange, Calif. “We’re asking the Air Force to simply follow its rules,” she says – either put the 157 back on active duty until they’ve got their 20 years, or grant them early retirement, as she says was done during a 1990s build down. “People come in and stay in for that retirement, and our clients have done 95% of the work – they’ve done everything they were ever asked of them — and now the service is deciding not to hold up their end of the deal.” She doesn’t have an estimate of how much these options would cost the service. “But it’s nothing,” she says, “compared to the cost of a bomber.”

Rotunda argues that the fate of Mosley & Co. contrasts markedly with this recent answer that nervous troops asking about their future heard at an out-of-the-way U.S. military base in the Horn of Africa:

We are not going to break faith with the men and women who’ve served this country…you deployed time and time again and I’m going to make sure that we stand by the promises that have been made to all of you…we will grandfather all of those who are in the service now, that you receive the benefits that have been promised to you.

That’s what Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said at Djibouti’s Camp Lemonier on Dec. 13, two weeks after Mosley and his fellow Air Force officers were forced out without the pensions and other benefits they feel they had earned.

DOD Photo by Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo
Panetta told troops at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti last month that the Pentagon will keep retirement-benefit promises made to them

But the Air Force says not only did the service not violate any promises to the 157, it told the defense secretary’s office a year ago (Robert Gates was then in the job) that the service might have to take such action. “The service secretaries already had the authority to adjust criteria” – cutting the grace period from six to five years – “as long as the secretary of defense was notified prior to implementation,” Air Force spokesman Dorrian says.

Meanwhile, good soldier that he was, Mosley flew out of McConnell Air Force Base last June and headed to Iraq and Qatar for two months of refueling fighters waging war in Afghanistan, and protecting troops on the ground in Iraq. “I was filling out my resume in-between missions,” he says. He fretted not only about the next six-hour flight into harm’s way, but his future, and that of his pregnant wife and baby daughter back home in Kansas.

Now that he’s the father of two girls – “I had a baby daughter born three days after I hit the unemployment line” – he’s seeking work as a civilian pilot back home in Kansas. When asked, he ponders what he’ll tell his kids if they ask Dad 15 years from now about joining the military.

“Up until this summer, nothing could have made me prouder,” Mosley says. “But as far as making the military a career, I absolutely am done recommending to anyone that they make the military a career. They have not, in my case at least, kept their promises.”

Read more: http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2012/01/03/air-force-firing-for-effect/#ixzz1iSF1JeBy

buglerbilly

05-01-12, 02:22 AM

F-22 Technology On UAV That Crashed In Iran

Jan 4, 2012

By Bill Sweetman, David Fulghum
Washington, Washington

The first clear pictures of the center-line reconnaissance bay on Lockheed Martin’s RQ-170 Sentinel show that the small unmanned aircraft was carrying sensor balls mounted in an internal compartment with specially treated transparent panels—developed for the F-22—when one of them crashed in Iran on Dec. 4.

The new pictures were taken at Kandahar airport in Afghanistan on Sept. 30. The images show that a wheels-up landing would have inflicted massive damage to the bay and sensor package.. That package is “similar to some of the podded electro-optical/infra-red [EO/IR]systems” used by other non-stealthy aircraft and unmanned aerial systems, says a veteran black-world engineer with insight into U.S. UAS programs.

The accident was caused by a “lost [data] link, followed by, or simultaneous with, another malfunction,” says a second official involved with the program. Putting the loss into perspective, “We’ve lost over 50 MQ-1s [Predators] and 9s [Reapers], so this should not be a surprise.”

The U.S. Air Force squadron that flew Sentinels was activated in 2005 and the stealthy, unmanned aircraft was first photographed at Kandahar in 2007. Early RQ-170 operations were conducted from both Afghanistan—with CIA involvement—and South Korea.

The RQ-170s were brought back to the U.S. in 2009, re-equipped with a full-motion video (FMV) camera, and then redeployed to Afghanistan, say USAF intelligence officials. At that time it was operated by the USAF 432nd Wing’s 30th Reconnaissance Sqdn. (RS), then at the Tonopah Test Range Airport in the northwest corner of the USAF Nevada Test and Training Range. The wing also flies the Predator and Reaper, and the Tonopah base was once the clandestine home of the F-117 stealth fighter.

Prior to refitting, the aircraft carried a long-range, EO/IR camera thought by U.S. analysts to be used for monitoring missile tests and other activities in sparsely populated eastern Iran.

The RQ-170’s operational altitude of 50,000 ft. gives it an advantage over other lower-cost UAVs and the manned RC-135 Cobra Ball (for monitoring foreign missile tests) that are restricted to about 30,000 ft. and below. However, the Sentinel is not a high-end, very low-observable stealth design with sophisticated sensors. It is instead a robust, reduced-signature, sensor truck designed to maintain high sortie rates.

Other stealth design features include a variant of the “toothpick” leading-edge profile developed for the B-2. Stealth dictates sharp leading edges, but bluff shapes are better for aerodynamics and stability. The compromise on the RQ-170 and B-2 is to make the edges sharp at their ends, where more radar scattering is most likely, and more blunt at the mid-point.

Initially, flights are thought to have been conducted along the borders of Afghanistan. avoiding the airspace of neighboring countries. However, after adding shorter-range FMV, the aircraft operated in Pakistan’s airspace to monitor the compound of Osama bin Laden, and later over Iran, defense officials say.

The RQ-170 has a dual history of operations for both the CIA and Air Force.

Some analysts believe the aircraft was originally funded after the Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems demonstration program was terminated in early 2006, as a near-term platform with adequate—but not advanced—stealth qualities to support a USAF airborne electronic attack (AEA) technology demonstration. However, the 30th RS was activated on Sept. 1, 2005. That may indicate that other, unknown UAVs are in its stable.

That effort culminated in an experimental deployment to South Korea in the summer and fall of 2009, and paved the way for a larger, classified UAV now under development. By the fall of 2007, however, the CIA had acquired the first of a small number of RQ-170s, fitted with what appears to be an off-the-shelf, full-motion-video sensor and a satellite communications (sitcom) system.

The choice of FMV suggests that Iranian nuclear and missile research facilities may not have been the primary target of the CIA’s mission. A long-range oblique photography (Lorop) camera would be better suited to such fixed targets. FMV is more valuable in operations like the bin Laden raid—where the sensor can monitor activity around a target—and the CIA may well have been concerned that Pakistani air-defense radar tracking of Reaper operations would leak to Pakistan-based insurgents.

FMV is a key component in the new field of activity-based intelligence analysis conducted by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. NGA analysis brings together all available intelligence data to build a more complete picture of a target of interest. In preparation for the Pakistan raid, the presence of bin Laden was deduced without a man fitting his description actually being seen. A helicopter crash during the raid also revealed the existence of a small fleet of helicopters modified for low noise, radar and heat signatures.

The new photos confirm that the RQ-170 is a small aircraft, with a wingspan of 45 ft. and an overall length of just over 17 ft. Major components of the landing gear appear to be drawn from the T-6 trainer, but with the wheels, lower struts and linkages rotated through 90 deg. so the main gears retract forward and the nose gear retracts to the right of the centerline.

The sideways-retracting nose gear is unusual, but leaves more of the limited centerline length available for payloads. The photos clearly show that the primary reconnaissance payload is a sensor ball covered by a “greenhouse” comprising three panels of radar-reflective, infrared-transparent material. Such materials may be classified, but they are not new. They were developed for the F-22 when it was still expected to carry an infrared search-and-track system. The V-shaped canoe fairing also could accommodate a small side-looking radar.

The twin overwing bulges most likely accommodate dual satcom antennas. This would allow the RQ-170 to use whichever antenna is on the “shadow” side of the vehicle, relative to the most severe radar threat. The center section is too short to accommodate a serpentine inlet duct—hence the reversion to the grid-shielded inlet used on the F-117. It is not clear how the problem of inlet icing is addressed. The F-117 used a retractable wiper/chemical spray system, stowed in a step in front of the inlet and operated by the pilot, who was supposed to detect ice visually with the help of a lamp in the fuselage side.

Photo: Iranian TV

buglerbilly

06-01-12, 10:30 AM

Boeing’s $70M Contract to Convert F-16s into Aerial Targets

Posted on January 6, 2012 by The Editor

Photo: US Air Force

When fighter jets age, their commercial and military value depreciates. They can either be consigned to the scrap heap, sold to nations with limited military budgets, placed in museums, or… get blown up in new and exciting ways.

The Defense Department has an entire programme devoted to blowing up old fighter jets–which are reconfigured into aerial targets–in mid-air. Repurposing old fighter jets into gigantic flying targets, it turns out, is very profitable for large aerospace firms like Boeing.

The Air Force’s QF-4 and QF-16 Aerial Target programmes convert retired F-4 Phantom and F-16 fighter jets into unmanned aircraft which can test missiles and radar systems. Many of the fighters used in the programme are blown up in mid-air; the Air Force expects to run out of F-4s to convert in 2013. Boeing announced that they won a $70 million engineering and manufacture contract to turn F-16s into unmanned and target-friendly QF-16s.

Although the F-4 family dates back to the 1960s, they are still used by militaries worldwide. However, the United States military only has a limited stock. According to an unclassified 2005 report on the use of aerial targets, American taxpayers spend approximately $220 million annually on aerial target programmes; more than 25% of the 700+ flights the airplanes make involve destruction by missile or alternate weapon systems.

For Boeing, repurposing disused fighter jets into unmanned drones is lucrative. The fact that their stock is constantly being hit by missiles is any business’ dream; replacement targets are always required by the military. Converted F-16 jets require total overhauls of their hardware, software, and individual components. Smaller military subcontractors who service Boeing also benefit from the assignment; specialty arms contractor BAE Systems is responsible for creating the software QA framework and remote control system that allows operators to remotely control the QF-16s.

Aerial targets have been around for a long time. The Air Force’s 82nd Aerial Target Squadron, which flies the QF-4s, has been testing aircraft since the 1970s. However, technology has only made it possible for unmanned targets to be launched over the past decade. For the military, this is a win-win proposition: new weapons systems can be tested in real-life environments without putting the lives of pilots at risk.

The unclassified report claims that the QF-16s will be used to test a variety of high-tech weapons systems and to examine tactics used by other millitaries–Air Force literature specifically mentions concerns about supersonic, anti-ship cruise missiles currently being used by Russia. In the long run, the Air Force is also planning to create a successor vehicle to the QF-16 that will be built from scratch as the perfect aerial target. Just this week, several Air Force cadets unveiled a model of a potential successor drone.

Production of the refurbished QF-16s will begin later this year in Jacksonville, Florida; the first QF-16s will be deployed in 2014.

Source: Fast Company

buglerbilly

06-01-12, 02:46 PM

Operating Next-Generation Remotely Piloted Aircraft for Irregular Warfare

(Source: USAF Scientific Advisory Board; dated April 2011)

(Released Dec. 13, 2011 by the Public Intelligence website)

The United States Air Force has long envisioned a strategic role for remotely piloted and autonomous aircraft. As early as May 1896, Samuel Pierpont Langley developed an unpiloted heavier-than-air vehicle which flew over the Potomac River. On V-J Day in August 1945, General Hap Arnold, US Army Air Forces, observed:

“We have just won a war with a lot of heroes flying around in planes. The next war may be fought by airplanes with no men in them at all … Take everything you’ve learned about aviation in war, throw it out of the window, and let’s go to work on tomorrow’s aviation. It will be different from anything the world has ever seen.”

Since these early days, extended range, persistence, precision, and stealth have characterized remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) advancements. RPAs have been employed in multiple combat roles and increasingly contested environments. This year, for the first time in history, the President’s budget proposed a larger investment in RPAs than manned aircraft. A seemingly insatiable operational appetite for RPAs, however, has led to an Air Force manning bottleneck.

This is exacerbated by a lack of common ground stations, unsatisfactory integration with civilian and international airspace, and vulnerabilities in communications and command and control links. Further complicating efforts, yet essential in irregular warfare, are directives to minimize civilian casualties. General David Petraeus sees this need as a direct way to support a key center of gravity:

“…We must fight the insurgents, and will use the tools at our disposal to both defeat the enemy and protect our forces. But we will not win based on the number of Taliban we kill, but instead on our ability to separate insurgents from the center of gravity – the people …”

Our Panel conducted an extensive set of visits and received numerous briefings from a wide range of key stakeholders in government, industry, and academia. Taking a human-centered, evidence-based approach, our study seeks to address operational challenges as well as point to new opportunities for future RPAs. That RPAs will be a foundational element of the Air Force’s force structure is no longer debatable. The real question is how to maximize their current and future potential. Our intention is that this study will help provide both vector and thrust in how to do so in the irregular warfare context, as well as other applications.

Click here for the full report (110 pages in PDF format) on the Public Intelligence website.

http://info.publicintelligence.net/USAF-RemoteIrregularWarfare.pdf

-ends-

buglerbilly

07-01-12, 01:58 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

The Iraq War: Global Hawk's Numbers

Posted by Robert Wall at 1/6/2012 6:46 AM CST

Regardless of the large number of unmanned aircraft flying over Afghanistan, the vast number of Reaper strikes will likely mean that system will always be associated with the war in the region.

Global Hawk backers may hope to make the case that it deserves similar status for the Iraq war, noting, for one, that it was there at the outset and was the last asset to leave Iraqi airspace when U.S. forces pulled out on Dec. 18.

(Photo: USAF/Master Sgt. Rob Donnelly)

During the period, various Global Hawks logged 1,146 missions and 21,325.3 flight hours.

Thirteen different Global Hawks were involved and they, too, tell a story of how long the operation unfolded and how things have changed. Operations began with a Global Hawk built for the advanced concept technology demonstration phase of the project. Block 10 Global Hawks were also used, and the operation closed with a Block 30 flying over the country.

buglerbilly

07-01-12, 02:34 AM

First C-130 AMP aircraft delivered

06 January 2012 - 17:49 by the Shephard News Team

Boeing has announced that the first C-130 to receive the Warner Robins Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) upgrade has been delivered to Little Rock Air Force Base. So far three aircraft have already been upgraded by Boeing, with this delivery marking the first upgrade carried out by Warner Robins.

The C-130 AMP cockpit upgrade will simplify and standardise the multiple C-130 configurations operated by the US Air Force (USAF). It will also ‘reduce annual ownership cost while offering the crews more situational awareness to perform their missions’, Boeing said.

According to Boeing, the aircraft is one of five that will participate in Initial Operational Testing and Evaluation (IOT&E) at Little Rock Air Force Base beginning later this month. The fifth aircraft, also to be upgraded by Warner Robins, will be delivered in February. It will be the fifth aircraft in the IOT&E fleet.

buglerbilly

10-01-12, 03:15 AM

Almost 1 In 3 U.S. Warplanes Is a Robot

By Spencer Ackerman and Noah Shachtman Email Author January 9, 2012 | 1:31 pm

Remember when the military actually put human beings in the cockpits of its planes? They still do, but in far fewer numbers. According to a new congressional report acquired by Danger Room, drones now account for 31 percent of all military aircraft.

To be fair, lots of those drones are tiny flying spies, like the Army’s Raven, that could never accommodate even the most diminutive pilot. (Specifically, the Army has 5,346 Ravens, making it the most numerous military drone by far.) But in 2005, only five percent of military aircraft were robots, a report by the Congressional Research Service notes. Barely seven years later, the military has 7,494 drones. Total number of old school, manned aircraft: 10,767 planes.

A small sliver of those nearly 7,500 drones gets all of the attention. The military owns 161 Predators — the iconic flying strike drone used over Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere — and Reapers, the Predator’s bigger, better-armed brother.

But even as the military’s bought a ton of drones in the past few years, the Pentagon spends much, much more money on planes with people in them. Manned aircraft still get 92 percent of the Pentagon’s aircraft procurement money. Still, since 2001, the military has spent $26 billion on drones, the report — our Document of the Day — finds.

The drones are also getting safer. (To operate, that is; not for their targets below.) Drone crashes get a lot of attention; 38 Predators and Reapers have crashed in Iraq and Afghanistan thus far; most recently, Iran looks like it got ahold of an advanced, stealthy RQ-170 Sentinel. But the congressional report finds that the Predator, for instance, has only 7.5 accidents per 100,000 hours of flight, down from 20 accidents over that time in 2005 — meaning it’s now got an accident rate comparable to a (manned) F-16.

But the report doesn’t mention some of the unique vulnerabilities of the drones. There’s no mention of the malware infection that reached into the drone cockpits at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada, a story Danger Room broke. Nor does it go into the workload problems for military imagery analysts caused by the proliferation of the drones full-motion video “Death TV,” which is pushing the military toward developing selective or “thinking” cameras. The ethical issues attendant to remote-control war also go unexplored.

Still, the report does explore the downsides of the Pentagon’s drone obsession. There are way too many redundant drones, it finds, and the expensive sensors they increasingly carry drive the costs of a supposedly cheap machine up. They’re also bandwidth hogs: a single Global Hawk drone requires 500 megabytes per second worth of bandwidth, the report finds, which is “500 percent of the total bandwidth of the entire U.S. military used during the 1991 Gulf War.” And it also notes that a lot of future spy missions might go not to drones, but to the increasing number of giant blimps and aerostats, some of which can carry way more sensors and cameras.

And the current fleet of flying robots is just the start. The Navy’s developing a next-gen drone that can take off and land from an aircraft carrier. Future missions, the report finds, include “stand-off jamming” of enemy electronics; “psychological operations, such as dropping leaflets” over an adversary population; and even measuring the amount of radiation in the earth’s atmosphere. The military’s working on increasingly autonomous drones — including tiny, suicidal killers — and on increasing the number of drones a single ground station can operate.

The Air Force even holds out hope for a “super/hyper-sonic” drone by 2034. It’s a good time to be a flying robot.

Congressional Research Service reports typically aren’t public. But we’re embedding it here, so you can read it in full for yourself. It compiles and updates a lot of useful information about military drones:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/77662547/1105-001

buglerbilly

11-01-12, 02:07 AM

U.S. Air Force taking steps on F-22 oxygen problems

Andrea Shalal-Esa

Reuters

6:45 p.m. CST, January 9, 2012

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force on Monday said it has not found a "smoking gun" to explain oxygen issues that grounded Lockheed Martin Corp's F-22 fighter jet for four months last year but has implemented steps to minimize problems.

Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz told Reuters that a subpanel was due to brief the Air Force's Science Advisory Board this week about recurring problems with the system that supplies oxygen to pilots who fly the radar-evading warplane, but no single mechanical cause had been found.

He said he expected the advisory board to finalize its report on the issue by the end of January or early February.

The Air Force grounded its fleet of F-22 Raptor fighter jets in May 2011 but allowed flights to resume in September after concluding the planes were safe to fly.

Schwartz said the service installed new equipment to monitor the output from the oxygen producing system on board, as well as the level of oxygen in the blood of the pilots, but would continue to collect data.

"We haven't found a single mechanical deficiency that addresses some of the symptoms that we've seen," he said in an interview at his Pentagon office. "We've taken a range of both engineering and physiological actions to minimize the consequences of what we've seen, and continue to collect data so we can nail this down once and for all."

"The stand-down provides Air Force officials the opportunity to investigate the reports and ensure crews are able to safely accomplish their missions," the Air Force said in a statement.

The Raptor is the premier U.S. fighter and features cutting-edge shapes, materials and propulsion systems designed to make it appear as small as a swallow on enemy radar screens.

Lockheed rolled the last F-22 fighter out of its Marietta, Georgia facility last month, but the Air Force is preserving the hardware used to build the jet, which would allow it to restart production for about $200 million.

Schwartz said he considered it unlikely that the plane's production would ever be restarted. "I wouldn't say never, but I think it very unlikely," he said.

(Reporting By Andrea Shalal-Esa in Washington, D.C.; Editing by Steve Orlofsky)

buglerbilly

12-01-12, 02:30 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

T-X Wedding Bells for BAE/Northrop and L-3?

Posted by Amy Butler at 1/11/2012 4:07 PM CST

Uncertainty about the Fiscal 2013 budget doesn't seem to be stifling BAE's efforts to compete for the U.S. Air Force's T-X competition, even if it does get delayed a bit in the forthcoming spending request.

BAE has called a press conference tomorrow for a major T-X announcement ... and it most likely that the team is bringing L-3 Link onto its team for the ground-based training elements.

This addition is the next logical step for BAE as it increases its U.S. presence; the company announced it was teaming with Northrop Grumman as its U.S. production lead last fall.

credit: Amy Butler

L-3 Link would bring that ground-based crew training expertise to the table.

The BAE/Northrop/L-3 Link team would compete against Lockheed Martin/KAI with the T-50 and Alenia with the M346.

But, the next big question as industry postures for this tender -- possibly 350 aircraft and a bevy of ground-based simulators -- is what will Boeing do.

The company continues to flirt with and advocate for the idea that the Air Force will opt for a "clean sheet" approach, approving an all-new design rather than modifying an already-developed product.

But, as the budget environment continues to become more tenuous, it is increasingly likely the Air Force will not change course. This means Boeing will have to look for a partner. The likely match would be Alenia ... so stay tuned.

buglerbilly

12-01-12, 02:34 AM

Chief skunk on 6th-gen fighters, 2-seat F-35s & classified UAVs

By Stephen Trimble

on January 11, 2012 4:41 PM

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- It was a presentation this morning by Alton "Al" Romig, the new chief of the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, on unmanned air vehicle technology, so you know he had to say something about the RQ-170 Sentinel. Anticipation only grew as he began his lecture to the 50th annual Sciences Meeting of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) with this sentence:

"I want to tickle your curiousity with the art of the possible," Romig said. (ED: Go onnnn ...)

Alas, even among his peers, Romig stuck to the unclassified, non-proprietary script on the RQ-170, which was referenced in text-form only on his second slide. Yes, the RQ-170 exists, he conceded. "And before you can ask me, that's all I can say about that," he said.

(ED: Right. Moving along then.)

On the subject of UAVs, Romig allowed that Skunk Works has much more than the RQ-170 in its classified product stable. "There's a whole large collection of classified programmes (within Lockheed) in the area of small UAVs," Romig said.

A major effort at Skunk Works is now underway to make UAVs more autonomous. Internal demonstrations have proven that a single operator can control more than two UAVs simultaneously. "How large that number can get is unclear," he said.

Intriguingly, Romig said that if the US Air Force returns to the days of "back-seat" electronic warfare officers, the F-35 could control a swarm of four "buddy" UAVs. He didn't directly say that Lockheed is considering two-seat F-35s, but the possibility tanatalises. (Two years ago, we reported that Israeli industry officials already anticipated the emergence of a two-seat F-35 eventually.)

In the short clip below, Romig answers an audience member's question about the the possibility of a sixth generation fighter.

Uploaded by thedewline on Jan 11, 2012
Skunk Works chief Al Romig talks about 6th gen fighters and autonomous technology on 11 January at the 50th Sciences Meeting of the AIAA in Nashville, Tennessee.

buglerbilly

13-01-12, 04:42 AM

Boeing’s C-130 Transport Upgrades Said to Be Ended by Pentagon

January 12, 2012, 12:32 PM EST

By Tony Capaccio

Jan. 12 (Bloomberg) -- The Pentagon has canceled a 10-year- old program that has Boeing Co. upgrading C-130 Hercules transports with modern cockpit electronics, according to two government officials.

The move saves almost $4 billion, including $2.22 billion planned from 2013 to 2016, according to an Air Force program document. The Air Force recommended the program termination and Pentagon planners accepted, said one of the officials familiar with the decision, who spoke on condition of anonymity because it hasn’t been announced.

While Boeing is performing the initial upgrades, the Air Force had planned a competition for most of the work after the program was entangled in a procurement scandal in the mid-2000s. The Pentagon rejected a previous move by the Air Force to kill the program in 2009.

The C-130 has the highest profile among the few programs the Pentagon intends to cancel in its plan for 2013 to 2017, the officials said. The proposed budget will contain more truncations or delays, such as moving the purchase of 100 to 150 Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 jets beyond 2017, the last year of the coming five-year spending plan.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is scheduled January 26 to announce some of the budget details, according to a third defense official. The Budget Control Act directed the Pentagon to cut $261 billion through 2017 from its planned budget, including $46.8 billion in 2013.

“Boeing has not been notified” of any cancellation decision, Jennifer Hogan, a company spokeswoman, said in an e- mail. “We continue to meet our C-130 customer commitments and continue to perform on the low-rate initial production contract.”

Tainted Win

The initial $4.1 billion C-130 Avionics Modernization Program contract was awarded to Boeing in 2001. Lockheed Martin Corp. challenged the win after Darleen Druyun, the Air Force’s former No. 2 acquisition official, told federal prosecutors she improperly favored Boeing in the selection. L-3 Communications Holdings Inc. and BAE Systems Plc also protested the award after Druyun’s admission.

The Government Accountability Office recommended in 2005 that the service rebid a portion of the contract. The Air Force agreed in April 2005 to do so.

Druyun was sentenced to nine months in prison October 2004 for discussing a job at Boeing while negotiating a refueling- tanker contract, a conflict-of-interest violation. She also admitted to awarding the C-130 work to Boeing out of gratitude for the company employing her daughter and future son-in-law.

First 26 Aircraft

Boeing, based in Chicago, was allowed to update the first 26 of the 221 C-130s through 2015. It has received $177.2 million so far for upgrades of six aircraft, engineering and logistics support and spares and installations.

The first four fully upgraded aircraft have been delivered to Little Rock Air Force Base in Arkansas. An additional aircraft is to be delivered next month, according to Air Force spokeswoman Jennifer Cassidy.

The remaining 195 aircraft upgrade kits were to be subject to competition starting in June 2013 with a full-rate production contract awarded in July 2014.

The upgrades outfit the aircraft with a common glass cockpit, integrated digital communications and navigation capabilities that meet Federal Aviation Administration and European air-traffic management and navigation mandates, Cassidy said.

The price for each upgrade kit has increased 16.3 percent to $15.4 million from $13.2 million, the Pentagon said in June 2010.

Cassidy said the Air Force won’t discuss the program’s budget status pending release of the fiscal 2013 budget. The Air Force has spent $1.69 billion on program research, according to a service program document.

The upgrade work is performed in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The work is being performed by Boeing’s Global Services & Support division under the company’s Defense, Space and Security unit.

--Editors: Larry Liebert, Bob Drummond

To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Capaccio in Washington at acapaccio@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva at msilva34@bloomberg.net

buglerbilly

14-01-12, 04:16 AM

U.S. still using drones like one downed in Iran

By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON | Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:13pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force understands what caused the crash of one of its unmanned spy drones over Iran late last year and continues to use that type of drone, Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz said.

Schwartz, in an interview with Reuters this week, said the drones are providing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) data to military commanders.

U.S. officials reject Iran's claim that it brought down the stealthy RQ-170 Sentinel built by Lockheed Martin Corp, but remain tight-lipped about what caused the crash.

U.S. officials told Reuters last month that they were investigating a combination of pilot error and technical malfunction as possible causes.

Schwartz declined comment on the outcome of the investigation, but said the Air Force now understood what caused the crash and was continuing to use the rest of the service's RQ-170 spy planes to provide data.

"The key thing is that it's an ISR system that we use to provide capabilities to the combatant commanders and we'll continue to do so," Schwartz said in an interview.

He also said the crash had not raised concerns about work on the classified spy plane by Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon's No. 1 supplier.

The Air Force operates "more than a handful" of the unmanned spy planes, and continues to fly them out of Kandahar, Afghanistan, according to one senior defense official and a former senior official, neither of whom could speak publicly given the sensitive nature of the program.

The plane lost in Iran was on a mission for the CIA, but the Air Force also uses the planes for other surveillance missions over Afghanistan, the officials said.

The radar-evading aircraft measures over 40 feet from wing tip to wing tip, and carries a full-motion video sensor that was used last year by U.S. intelligence to monitor al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan ahead of the raid that killed him. It features special coatings that make it nearly invisible to enemy radar.

Lockheed has declined comment on the Iran incident or what might have gone wrong with the plane, which came out of the company's secretive Skunk Works facility in southern California.

Company officials have referred all questions about the incident to the Air Force, which first acknowledged the existence of the drone in December 2009.

Iran announced on December 4 it had downed the spy plane in the eastern part of the country, near Afghanistan. It subsequently showed an image of the apparently intact plane on television and said it was close to cracking its technological secrets.

The loss of the plane sparked some concerns that sophisticated technology could fall into the hands of China or other countries that are actively developing their own unmanned planes. The main concern about technology Iran could pilfer from the drone centers on the special coatings on the craft's surface.

The computers onboard the drone are believed to have been heavily encrypted and its sensors were not the most sophisticated tools in the U.S. arsenal.

(Reporting By Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Vicki Allen)

buglerbilly

14-01-12, 04:38 AM

DoD Tester: Toxins Suspected in 2011 Raptor Grounding

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 13 Jan 2012 18:59

A Jan. 13 report from the Pentagon's top tester said the U.S. Air Force grounded its F-22 Raptors last year "due to suspected contamination problems associated with the aircraft environmental control system and associated onboard oxygen generation system form later April through late September 2011."

A U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor prepares to land at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, on Nov. 16, two months after the service lifted its fleetwide grounding. (Staff Sgt. Sheila deVera / U.S. Air Force)

Complied by the Pentagon's chief operational tester J. Michael Gilmore, the review confirms Defense News' July 25, 2011, report that toxins entering the cockpit of the Raptor had caused more than a dozen incidents that resembled hypoxia.

Since the grounding was lifted in September, the Raptor has flown more than 6,000 times. More incidents have occurred, despite Air Force precautions that include installing charcoal-based filters and having pilots wear pulse-oximeters to alert them of problems.

"There have been approximately 90 events of interest and 15 are being investigated for potential physiological incidents -- 8 involving pilots and 7 involving aircraft maintenance personnel," said Air Force spokeswoman Jennifer Ferrau. "This translates to a 1.8 percent event rate since the return to flight in September."

The Air Force categorizes these occurrences into "events of interest" and "physiological incidents." An event of interest is an aircraft indication, system malfunction or a data point that has not caused symptoms of hypoxia, but is noteworthy for data collection and further analysis, Ferrau said.

"Any event involving hypoxia-like symptoms may be categorized by Air Force Instructions as a physiological incident following an investigation," she said.

A Scientific Advisory Board quick-look study ordered last year by Air Force secretary Michael Donley should be finalizing its report either in late January or early February.

Sources say the service investigators have not found any single explanation for the Raptor's woes. The problem can't be duplicated on the ground, nor do the hypoxia-like incidents occur during any consistent altitude or phase of flight-if in fact the cause happens in the air.

buglerbilly

17-01-12, 07:38 AM

New service doctrine redefines air power

By Markeshia Ricks - Staff writer

Posted : Monday Jan 16, 2012 7:53:33 EST

Air Force
Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcon pilots from the 4th Fighter Squadron out of Hill Air Force Base, Utah, execute an echelon formation in October 2011 during an air refueling mission over Jordan in support of the Falcon Air Meet.

If you think air power is just fighter jets screeching across the sky armed with deadly precise missiles, think again.

It took three years for the Air Force to redefine what air power means in its Force Doctrine Document 1, or AFDD 1 — a must-read for all airmen, officials say. The changes are the first since 2003 and align the service’s guiding document with the missions airmen are being called upon to do.

Gen. Thomas K. Andersen, commander of the Curtis E. LeMay Center for Doctrine Development and Education at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., said doctrine writers chose to redefine air power to reflect what airmen contribute to joint war-fighting efforts today.

“People still come from different functional areas and expertise ... but I think [air power is] a term that’s going to help us break down some of those stovepipes,” Andersen said.

Air power is now defined in the doctrine as “the ability to project military power or influence through the control and exploitation of air, space and cyberspace to achieve strategic, operational or tactical objectives.”

Before the update, the doctrine was still grounded in a Cold War mentality of near and identifiable combatants going into battle, Andersen said. A decade of war has magnified the joint war-fighting efforts such as the service’s ability to provide close-air support to protect ground forces, providing supplies to remote forces, humanitarian relief and training coalition partners. The service performed all these missions while increasing its intelligence-gathering and surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities.

In addition to a new definition of air power, the doctrine distinguishes between traditional and irregular war and emphasizes the role that culture plays in war.

“You can see a lot has evolved from the present conflict in the Middle East,” Andersen said of the revised doctrine. “It shows some flexibility and shows some of the responsiveness of how we present forces to the joint fighting arena.”

Absent from the doctrine, until now, was mention of the growing reliance on computers for day-to-day operations and risks associated with the technological advances that have occurred during the past two decades. The doctrine acknowledges the threat of hackers and describes the Air Force’s cyberspace operations and integration of nuclear support.

Though AFDD 1 clocks in at a hefty 125 pages, including a glossary and appendices, Andersen said the document is designed to be easy to read with lots of historical context, bullets, highlighted sections, pictures and plain language.

“Really simply, it is what we believe as airmen,” Andersen said. “If you are going to be a leader or a member of the Air Force you have to understand the basic tenants of what we believe. [The doctrine] is based on best practices, it’s based on lessons learned and it is a common frame of reference for some of the fundamentals of how we organize, train and fight.”

buglerbilly

17-01-12, 11:12 PM

Low Cost Is Key To Electronic Warfare Future

Jan 17, 2012

By David Fulghum
Washington

The weapons and new technologies of future wars are going to involve fewer things that explode. In fact, weapons effects will often be so quick and insidious that victims will be left grasping for clues—perhaps literally in the dark—as to what just happened to them.

Some of those key technologies will include directed energy—such as lasers and high-power microwave (HPM) weapons—and artificial brains that can train themselves to manage dangerous battlefield jobs.

“It’s all about saving money,” says Mike Booen, Raytheon’s vice president for advanced security and directed-energy systems. “If you can defeat mortars and Kayusha [artillery rockets] with a laser, you can relieve yourself of the big logistics tail required to bring ammunition to the front and having to maintain the guns. By using the speed of light, you can beat the simultaneity problem [of lots of incoming projectiles] that you face with kinetic weapons.”

Finding the right problem to solve is also critical. Raytheon grafted a fiber laser to its AIM-9X missile’s pointer-track subsystem. That proved to researchers that they could take a device off a fixed-price production line and add a laser that has been validated in the medical and precision measurement markets.

“You take the risk down to zero for integrating [a small, lightweight] directed infrared countermeasures [Dircm] system that can go on the U.S. Army’s smallest helicopters,” says Booen. “That’s a great application of the technology,” as opposed to putting a high-energy laser on a large airborne platform full of toxic chemicals and presenting a large target for anti-aircraft weapons to shoot at, he adds. “I can come up with 15 ways to solve that problem kinetically with existing products. The key is focusing directed energy on the problems that require the speed of light.”

A class of problems illustrates the need for HPM. For example, foes could put satellite communications and GPS navigation jammers—to lead precision weapons astray—on top of hospitals and schools. This type of target cannot be attacked with conventional bombs, nor does it lend itself to lasers.

“That’s a problem screaming to get solved,” Booen declares.

The precision application of effects will be guided by some new schemes for fusing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR).

“There are things that are improving dramatically such as connectivity, the quality of information, miniaturization of components and advanced, high-resolution optics that are combined with the ability to link that data and share it,” says a senior ISR specialist. “Once you understand the battlespace and what is happening there, you can make decisions about how to deal with it.

“From a budget standpoint, it is going to be interesting to watch what is done with all the platforms the U.S. has bought,” he says. “We will want to upgrade the sensors and content of those vehicles, UAVs, aerostats and airplanes because there has been such a monumental improvement in the ability to observe things.

“The metric we use operationally is that now you can see the whole town in high fidelity ,” he says. This is a capability that has only matured since 2006. “If something happens, you can see the reaction. You can track it back to see where people came from and track it forward to see where the participants went. I can see the vehicles, the people and what the people are carrying—a gun or a shovel.”

The need to use lots of battlefield robotics is going to create another opportunity for technology. How can all those unmanned ground, air and maritime robots operate autonomously and then later as part of a group of unmanned systems?

Alan Taub, General Motors vice president of global research and development, says autonomous cars with sophisticated self-driving systems can be ready for commercial sales by the end of the decade. Many are already equipped with sensors, radars, portable communication devices, GPS navigation, cameras and digital maps. Combined with other safety options such as lane-departure warnings and blind-zone alerts, there is a foundation for autonomous driving.

With survival cited as the goal, the system starts sounding familiar to military planners.

Vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication systems gather information from other vehicles, roadways and traffic signals to warn about possible hazards ahead, including slowed or stalled vehicles, slippery roads, sharp curves and upcoming intersections. These systems can be embedded in the vehicle or be added as applications to portable devices and smartphones that connect wirelessly to the vehicle, Taub says.

The driver’s brain, designed to evolve to meet changing demands, may also become a commercial product according to a recent article in New Scientist magazine.

A team at Cornell University’s Creative Machines Lab has created digital brains using neural networks that mimic biological evolutionary processes, and researchers are working on how to link them to robot bodies. The best-performing brains are allowed to reproduce to create new generations. Within a few hours of being plugged into the body, one brain was able to make a four-legged robot walk. The Cornell researchers also plan to design soft-bodied robots using printable materials that act as muscles, bones, batteries, wires and computers. The idea is that eventually the entire robot will be printed including the brain.

These battlefield demands and the maturing of new technologies also explain why Raytheon bought Ktech during mid-2011. Ktech is involved in airborne electronic warfare, directed energy and pulsed power. These capabilities are needed for the development of airborne weapon systems that can analyze targets and then tailor a radio-frequency or HPM beam to upset or even electronically damage systems dependent on electronics. A directed-energy beam can be varied in width, energy output, modulation and frequency to create precise effects. Such systems will also have feedback monitoring to analyze the impact of these unseen, non-kinetic weapons.

The vision is to give warfighters variants of virtually all of Ktech’s weapon systems on Raytheon missiles.

The only way directed energy can establish itself on the battlefield is to show that it can deliver the effect from a reusable platform like a UAV or service multiple targets from a single platform like a cruise missile, and that it is a more affordable way to prosecute a war. So there may be some new options for the conundrum of how to blow up the enemy command-and-control center operating from the school yard.

“Do I wait until school is out and put a 500-lb. bomb in the middle of it?” Booen asks. “We think there are some other ways. Our time horizons are way shorter than a decade. I think we’ll have multiple nonkinetic effectors to offer in the next five years.”

Education of decisions makers both in and out of uniform will be part of the process.

“Knowledge of the effects of HPM kind of lean toward the Ocean’s Eleven kind of movies where they shut the lights off in the Bellagio casino to rob it,” says Booen. “I say how about applying it to the bad guys’ command-and-control center. If you can find that site and shut it off without the enemy knowing how it happened, tactical commanders will want the capability.”

[I]Photo: USAF

buglerbilly

20-01-12, 08:00 AM

New RPA career field graduates first RQ-4 pilots

Posted 1/19/2012

by Senior Airman Shawn Nickel
9th Reconnaissance Wing Public Affairs

1/19/2012 - BEALE AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AFNS) -- Two members of Beale Air Force Base were recognized as the first RQ-4 Global Hawk pilots in the new 18X career field during a winging ceremony Jan. 13 here.

Second Lts. Jacob and Scott began training Oct. 3, 2011, after a decision by Air Staff officials in June 2011 established undergraduate training for remotely piloted aircraft pilots across the service.

"It's history repeating itself to have our pilots ushering in this new time in our career field," said Lt. Col. Steve, the 1st Reconnaissance Squadron commander. "The 1st RS, previously the 1st Aero Squadron, was the first (flying squadron in history)."

The new classification 18X is designated for RPA pilots coming from non-rated career fields as well as newly commissioned officers. The commander said selection standards for this program are rigorous, to include physiological and academic requirements.

"With these pilots not coming from traditional training and not being experienced aviators, this is untested territory," the colonel said. "But the stringent requirements the Air Force has in place will ensure success."

The pilots will begin flying operational and humanitarian missions immediately in support of combatant commanders worldwide.

"We were told we were leading a newly edged sword into the Air Force and this has become a reality," Scott said. "It's a privilege to be the first in this platform at this capacity. I'm ready to become part of such an intense history and pave the way for the rest of the pipeline students."

Steve said the current plan is to convert all RQ-4 pilots to the new career field beginning with 40 percent of the trainees by the end of 2012.

"Based on the performance of these two Airmen, I have high hopes for the future of the program and the 18X pilots," he said. "It's bringing a youthful dynamic to the RPA program, which will bring it to new heights."

buglerbilly

21-01-12, 02:33 AM

Mercury Provides Real-Time Image Processing for Gorgon Stare

Posted on January 20, 2012 by The Editor

The Mercury Federal Systems subsidiary of Mercury Computer Systems Inc., provided its onboard real-time image processing and storage subsystems to the Sierra Nevada Corp. (SNC) for the U.S. Air Force’s Gorgon Stare (GS) persistent surveillance system, currently deployed in Operation Enduring Freedom.

The Air Force’s Gorgon Stare wide-area persistent surveillance system, developed by the SNC-led industry team under the Air Force/Big Safari rapid acquisition programme, has been flying operational missions since April 2011. Hosted on an Air Force/General Atomics long-dwell MQ-9 Reaper each GS orbit provides uninterrupted, 24/7 visible and IR coverage of city-sized areas, providing real-time motion video directly to theater and tactical forces engaged in operations.

The entire mission data set, recorded onboard the aircraft in machine-lossless format, is provided post-mission for live, long-term archiving and discovery, as well as additional current exploitation.

“The Air Force required a long-dwell, multi-sensor system that could support numerous, simultaneous surveillance missions, providing real-time support to ground forces and forensic information to analysts. Equally important was how quickly the system could deploy for operations,” explains David Bullock, vice president, ISR Persistent Surveillance, Sierra Nevada Corp. “Mercury’s renowned expertise in embedded, high-performance digital signal and image processing and their ability to accelerate time to deployment made them a clear choice for the Increment 1 core team.”

In addition to Mercury Federal Systems, SNC’s Increment 1 partners included ITT Geospatial Systems, MIT/LL, L3, Gitchner, and AdamWorks. SNC is under contract to develop the next generation of Gorgon Stare systems. The SNC-led Increment 2 team adds BAE Systems as the next-generation visible sensor provider.

Mercury’s on-board, real-time sensor signal processing subsystem uses open standards-based 6U OpenVPX architecture and includes the following commercial computing hardware and software building blocks: OpenVPX GPU processing module, Switch module, Intel Core i7-based Server module, and Imaging Toolkit. Mercury’s ruggedized, solid-state disk drive-based Digital Storage Unit stores mission data for both immediate exploitation and longer term forensic analysis.

“Mercury’s flexible, size, weight, and power (SWaP)-optimized processing architecture provides unmatched performance through new on-board capabilities for Sierra Nevada’s system solution, enabling the most powerful data processing and exploitation to occur closer to the sensor while overcoming air-to-ground communications bottlenecks,” says Dr. Paul Monticciolo, general manager, Mercury Federal Systems. “Warfighters and analysts will be better able to extract actionable intelligence from the resulting imagery and exploitation products in near-real time through ROVER displays and dissemination through the DCGS. As a result, our forces will have persistent situational awareness of ground activities.”

Source: Press Release

buglerbilly

23-01-12, 11:48 PM

U.S. Air Force to Get Five More C-17s

Jan. 23, 2012 - 05:56PM

By Dave Majumdar

The U.S. Air Force has awarded Boeing a $693 million firm-fixed price contract modification to buy five additional C-17 Globemaster III strategic airlifters.

The original compact was an indefinitely-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract that was awarded on May 13 to buy the first five planes in the Air Force’s 2010 requirement. The contract was issued by the Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.

The aircraft will be built at Boeing’s Long Beach, Calif., factory and work should be completed by March 20, 2013, according to a Pentagon release.

buglerbilly

25-01-12, 02:37 AM

Pentagon May Mothball Air Force Global Hawk

By Carlo Munoz

Published: January 24, 2012

WASHINGTON: The Air Force's RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned aircraft appears to be the latest big-ticket program to fall victim to the Pentagon's budget axe.

The venerable intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance drone will be nixed as part of the Air Force's upcoming fiscal 2013 budget proposal, according to Loren Thompson, a consultant and defense analyst. Specifically, the Air Force will retire the Block 30 variants of the drone already in the service's fleet and end production of the platform entirely, he wrote.

The decision comes as Global Hawk-manufacturer Northrop Grumman is developing a new Block 40 version of the drone for the Air Force and a maritime version -- known as the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance system -- for the Navy. The cancellation also comes at a time when company officials have been aggressively pushing the Global Hawk into foreign markets. Deals with NATO, South Korea, Japan and Australia were potentially on the table until today's announcement.

"Obviously, it's a disappointment," company spokesman Jim Stratford said, noting that the Pentagon issued an Acquisition Decision Memorandum last June that concluded Global Hawk is "essential to national defense and no other platform could do this mission at lower cost." The ADM was issued when the Defense Acquisition Board approved a massive restructuring of the program. But the Global Hawk's multiple breaches of federally-mandated cost caps, including the one that prompted the June restructure, have proven a persistent headache to the Air Force. Ultimately, that concern pushed service leaders to offer the ISR drone as a "bill-payer" in the 2013 budget plan, according to Thompson.

The Global Hawk's cancellation may ultimately leave the brunt of the Air Force's high-altitude ISR operations to the aging U-2 spy plane. A burden that will only get heavier as U.S. military forces begin to pivot from Southwest Asia to the Western Pacific. Since the Global Hawk's inception, Air Force leaders have repeatedly claimed the drone would replace the legacy U-2. But as years passed, service leaders always came up with reasons why the RQ-4 was not yet ready to take the manned aircaft's place. What will be really interesting to watch is, if the Global Hawk program is killed, will the Pentagon order a new aircraft capable of doing the same missions.

buglerbilly

25-01-12, 02:44 AM

Air Force Leaders Pump F-35, F-22 Before Budget

By Colin Clark

Published: January 24, 2012

PENTAGON: Two of the Air Force's senior leaders argued today that fifth generation aircraft like the F-22 and the F-35 are needed for anti-access operations in what looked like a last-minute service effort to bolster the expensive systems before the 2013 budget is released.

Lt. Gen. Christopher Miller, deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and programs, and Maj. Gen. Noel "Tom" Jones, director for operation capability requirements, told reporters that improving anti-aircraft missile systems require fifth-gen planes. The two senior Air Force leaders also referenced "anti-access" environments, a term which is closely associated with China and the AirSea Battle concept.

"Militaries have operated in anti-access environments probably since the beginning of time. But what is different, and why fifth-generation aircraft is relevant to that, is that operating in anti-access environments continues to become more complex and challenging," Miller said. [Eds. note: all quotes are from an American Forces Press Service story about their remarks.]

Jones also noted that command-and-control systems have improved and require new countermeasures. "The fifth-generation capabilities that the F-22 and F-35 possess will allow us to deal with that environment," he said.

Miller stressed the importance of the aircrafts' importance to the "joint team," a reminder that skies full of friendly aircraft are a key prerequisite for success on the ground and at sea.

Does all this mean that the Air Force is very worried the F-35 will face substantial cuts when Leon Panetta unveils the basic defense budget on Thursday? It's hard to tell as the generals were largely repeating arguments already made by their superiors, Gen. Norton Schwartz, chief of staff, and Mike Donley, Secretary of the Air Force. But when generals make pitches like this to reporters, it's usually for a reason.

buglerbilly

26-01-12, 01:46 AM

Air Force Cans Current Global Hawk; Funds Next-Gen Version

By Carlo Munoz

Published: January 25, 2012

UPDATED WASHINGTON: The Global Hawk is dead. Long live the Global Hawk.

For more news and information on the swiftly-changing defense industry, please sign up for the AOL Defense newsletter. For the quickest updates, like us on Facebook.

Pentagon and service leaders are rumored to be considering reducing or canceling the current version of the venerable intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance drone. The Block 30 Global Hawk variant will be replaced with the Cold War-era U-2 spy planes. The decision to cut or cancel purchases of the last 10 Block 30s will be part of the Air Force's upcoming fiscal 2013 budget proposal, according to Loren Thompson, a consultant and defense analyst. But with the fate of the Block 30 variant sealed, the Air Force will reportedly move ahead with a newer variant of the aerial drone.

The Air Force is expected to request funding for three Block 40 versions of the Global Hawk at a total cost of $1.2. billion, according to recent news reports. The Pentagon will also push forward with plans to build a Navy version of the drone, known as the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance system. The Navy is also working on a new carrier-based unmanned drone, known as the Unmanned Combat Air System.

It's worth remembering that the Global Hawk's multiple breaches of federally-mandated cost caps, including the one that prompted the June restructure, have proven a persistent headache to the Air Force. Ultimately, that concern pushed service leaders to offer the ISR drone as a "bill-payer" in the 2013 budget plan, according to Thompson.

Its unclear whether the Air Force will curtail or terminate the Block 30 line, but Global Hawk manufacturer Northrop Grumman was notified of the Air Force's plans for the drone program last year. At the time, service leaders claimed the decision was simply a case of "dollars and sense" and had nothing to do with the capabilities of the aircraft, an official with knowledge of the program said.

However, one industry insider claims the Block 30's rumored fate is directly tied to long-standing biases against unmanned aircraft within the service. "I think someone should congratulate the U-2 mafia for convincing the Air Force they have made a smart decision," the insider said, referring to the cadre of former U-2 pilots who populate the air service's upper echelon.

Since the Global Hawk's inception, Air Force leaders have repeatedly claimed the drone would replace the legacy U-2. But as years passed, service leaders always came up with reasons why the RQ-4 was not yet ready to take the manned aircaft's place. But in terms of costs, the insider claims the Global Hawk will cost $1 to $2 billion less than the U-2 over the next six years. The aircrafts's per hour flight costs are, on average, $2,000 less than the U-2, the first official claimed. But those costs do not include the various logistics, support and personnel expenditures needed to operate the either the Global Hawk or U-2.

But in the drive to get replace the U-2 with the Global Hawk, a handful of top Air Force leaders have stacked the deck against the unmanned drone. Service number crunchers piled on seemingly unrelated costs into the Global Hawk's bottom line, according to the industry insider. For example, service leaders folded in the costs for a new child care center at Beale Air Force Base into the program's projected military construction costs, the insider said. Global Hawk is based at Beale.

"It's the 'white scarf' problem," the insider said regarding the perceived sandbagging of the Global Hawk program. "Guys who pull two G's and [want to] become aces. That's the Air Force and Navy of the past." And that problem won't be limited to the Global Hawk. The Navy's UCAS will also face the same pushback as it moves from development into production.

But as U.S. military forces begin to pivot from Southwest Asia to the Western Pacific, what will be really interesting to watch is will the Pentagon order a new aircraft capable of doing the same missions as the Block 30 Global Hawk. Or will the so-called "U-2 mafia" continue to throw salt on the tail of every unmanned aircraft that comes along.

buglerbilly

30-01-12, 02:57 PM

Northrop Grumman fights RQ-4 Block 30 cancellation threat

By: Stephen Trimble Washington DC

28 minutes ago

Source:

Northrop Grumman has challenged the US military's decision to park existing RQ-4 Global Hawk Block 30s in usable storage and terminate production.

The imagery- and signals intelligence-collecting variant of the high-altitude, long-endurance unmanned aircraft system could be cancelled as part of the fiscal year 2013 budget cuts proposed by the Pentagon on 26 January.

The proposed cuts, meanwhile, create uncertainty about the programme's future as South Korea and NATO are poised to sign orders for different Global Hawk variants.

Northrop has launched a multimedia campaign to block the proposed cuts, despite the US military's long-standing concerns about the type's cost, reliability and sensor performance.

© Northrop Grumman

"We think it's a great product," said George Guerra, Northrop's vice-president of high-altitude, long-endurance systems. "It's done a lot of great things."

However the US Air Force, which has received 11 of the 14 RQ-4 Block 30s already on order, was unimpressed after deploying the aircraft last year after the Japan earthquake and during the Libyan rebellion.

The key test for the USAF was whether the Block 30 would be a cheaper and more capable intelligence platform than the 65-year-old Lockheed U-2, scheduled to retire in 2016.

On 27 January, USAF Chief of Staff Gen Norton Schwartz said the Global Hawk system had not proved to be cheaper to operate than the U-2. "And in many respects, the Global Hawk Block 30 system is not as capable from a sensor point of view, as is the U-2," he added.

As of July 2011, operating the U-2S fleet cost $2,830 per flight hour, versus more than $6,710 for the RQ-4A/B, as stated in the air force's total ownership cost (AFTOC) database obtained by Flightglobal.

Northrop, however, considers the USAF's cost comparisons "a little flawed", Guerra said. The company's analysis suggests the air force recently shifted some overhead costs for the U-2 fleet over to the RQ-4, which artificially lowered the Global Hawk fleet's affordability, he added.

The AFTOC records show the U-2S fleet's cost per flight hour declined abruptly by 32% within two years after the RQ-4 entered the database in 2010. However, the U-2S was still always cheaper to operate, peaking at less than $4,180 per flight hour in 2009, or 37% less than the RQ-4 last year.

Guerra also said that complaints about the Global Hawk's primary sensor - the Raytheon enhanced imagery surveillance system - are outdated. "There were a couple of improvements made to the sensor very recently," he said.

Schwartz did not complain about the RQ-4's reliability statistics, although a report last year by the USAF's operational testing office was highly critical. During initial operational test and evaluation, the RQ-4's mission capability rate averaged about 41%.

However, the Global Hawk's reliability "has actually improved significantly in the short span of a year", Guerra said. The mission capability rate for deployed RQ-4s now averages about 83%, he added.

buglerbilly

30-01-12, 10:25 PM

5 USAF A-10 Squadrons To Be Cut

Jan. 30, 2012 - 04:01PM

By JEFF SCHOGOL

The A-10 Thunderbolt II provides the type of close-air support that ground-pounders love and the Taliban dread. Although the A-10s are workhorses in the war on terrorism, the U.S. Air Force in its new budget request is planning to get rid of five squadrons.

As part of the Defense Department’s efforts to trim close to $500 billion in spending over the next decade, defense officials said Jan. 27 that the service intends to cut five A-10 tactical squadrons and two other squadrons as well.

The Thunderbolt squadrons to be stood down encompass one active-duty, one Reserve and three National Guard units. The remaining two squadrons disappearing are a Guard F-16 tactical unit and an F-15 training squadron.

The move was part of a series of proposed budget cuts announced Jan. 26 at the Pentagon. Also on the chopping block are the C-27 and the Global Hawk Block 30; and as the ground force shrinks, the service plans to retire the oldest of its aging transport aircraft.

Facing a new age of fiscal austerity, the Defense Department is trying to pivot away from the counterinsurgency campaigns of the past decade, which required large numbers of conventional forces, toward smaller, less expensive missions waged primarily by special operations forces.

While the A-10 is very good at providing close-air support, the Air Force needs aircraft that can do more than one mission, Adm. James Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Jan. 26 in an interview with Military Times reporters and editors.

“Is the F-35 going to be as good a close-air support platform as an A-10? I don’t think anybody believes that,” he said, “But is the A-10 going to be the air-to-air platform that the F-35 is going to be? So again, the Air Force is trying to get as much multimission capability into the limited number of platforms it’s going to have.”

While Air Force fighter aircraft are the most advanced in the world, some critics have said the need for an aircraft that can outfight near-peer rivals seems a bit over the horizon. But Winnefeld said the issue is not so clear-cut.

“It could be that those who think there’s never going to be an air-to-air engagement ever again in the history of the world could be wrong,” Winnefeld said. “It could be those who believe that the close-air support role of the A-10 is absolutely paramount could be wrong, as well.”

As the Air Force looks toward the future, it expects its intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions to become even more important. That’s why the service wants to have the ability to conduct 85 unmanned aerial drone patrols when needed. Currently, the Air Force can provide a maximum of 61 continuous patrols.

The Global Hawk Block 30, which was supposed to replace the U-2 spy plane, has proved to be too expensive for its mission, so the Air Force announced Jan. 26 that it has also canceled the Block 30 and extended the life of the U-2.

The move does not affect the other variants of the Global Hawk, said Ashton Carter, deputy defense secretary.

As the ground forces shrink, the Air Force will need fewer transport aircraft, so the proposed spending cuts call for the Air Force to retire 27 aging C-5As and 65 of the oldest C-130s, leaving Air Mobility Command with 52 C-5Ms, 318 C-130s and 222 C-17s.

Carter called the older C-5As and C-130s excess capacity, adding, “In this budget environment, we can’t justify capacity that is excess to need.”

The Defense Department is also looking to kill the C-27, a joint Army-Air Force cargo aircraft.

“The C-27J was developed and procured to provide a niche capability to directly support Army urgent needs in difficult environments such as Afghanistan where we thought the C-130 might not be able to operate effectively,” DoD stated in a budget presentation. “However, in practice, we did not experience the anticipated airfield constraints for C-130 operations in Afghanistan and expect these constraints to be marginal in future scenarios. Since we have ample inventory of C-130s and the current cost to own and operate them is lower, we no longer need — nor can we afford — a niche capability like the C-27J aircraft.”

Even before the proposed cuts were announced, one aerospace nonprofit organization weighed in, arguing the Air Force has been putting “short-term operational demands over long-term global realties.”

“While attributes like stealth, speed and range were not necessary above the occupied states [Iraq and Afghanistan], they are essential preconditions for securing U.S. interests elsewhere,” according to a letter sent by the Air Force Association on Jan. 26 to Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and John McCain, R-Ariz., chairman and ranking minority member, respectively, on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Signed by several former senior Air Force officials, the letter urges the service to pursue modernization programs put on the back burner since the end of the Cold War. “The need to strike distant targets and return safely did not emerge during the Cold War, nor did it end when the Berlin Wall fell,” it says, “While the U.S. was engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, other nations were busy designing, fielding and proliferating new weapons that have the potential to curtail our freedom of action throughout major regions of the world.”

buglerbilly

02-02-12, 10:16 PM

U.S. Air Force Reveals Budget Cut Details

Feb 2, 2012

By David A. Fulghum davef@aviationweek.com
WASHINGTON

The U.S. Air Force is proposing to cut 123 fighters and 133 airlifters as it manages spending reductions triggered by a flattening defense budget and declining operational demands. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley, at an Air Force Association event in Washington on Feb. 2, previewed more details of the USAF portion of the fiscal 2013 budget request that comes out Feb. 13.

Overall, the Air Force will be reduced by 286 aircraft. Of these, 123 will be fighters, the equivalent of seven squadrons — six tactical, one training — out of 60 squadrons. Of these, 102 will be A-10Cs and 21 will be older model F-16s — a response to the smaller size of the ground forces they will support. There will be 246 A-10s remaining.

The service is retaining multimission aircraft that can address a broad spectrum of threats and those that can be converted to a common configuration such as the C-5M Globemaster III. Service planners also are looking at common, extended-range C-17s. The F-22 also is being modified to a common configuration to ensure operational flexibility.

Programs that are being slowed are having their funding protected. Those include the Long Range Strike family of systems and its new bomber, the KC-46A tanker, advanced intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and the F-16 fleet.

Not all modernization programs will slow, however.

“As we worked through the implications of the delays in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, we have made a commitment to modernize about 350 F-16s with additional capabilities,” Donley says. “We have delayed F-35 full-rate production, but there are no changes in the program of record involving the projected size of the F-35 fleet. Those decisions will be made in the 2020s when production has reached about 1,000-1,600 aircraft.

Air mobility will take a 133-aircraft divestment. The Air Force will retain 222 C-17s, 52 C-5Ms and 300-plus C-130s. Divestments will include 27 C-5As, 65 older C-130s and all 38 existing and planned C-27s.

There will be adjustments to the number of ISR platforms. The remotely piloted aircraft force will be sized to 65 orbits with the ability to surge to 85. There will be no change in the number of manned aircraft among the 55th Wing’s special missions platforms that include the RC-135 Rivet Joint, Cobra Ball and Combat Sent fleets. Regular upgrades of the signals, infrared and measurements and signatures payloads will continue. The fleets’ technology upgrades will remain well funded.

“We will retire the RQ-4 Global Hawk block 30 fleet, which is about 18 aircraft, 11 RC-26s and one battle-damaged E-8C Joint-Stars aircraft,” Donley says. “There was increasing cost [in the Global Hawk] program that passed our level of tolerance. We like the capability, but not at any cost. We had a good alternative with [continued use of the manned] U-2. We still have the Global Hawk Block 20s, which are important to communications, and we intend to buy the Block 40s with ground moving target indicator capabilities.”

Personnel loss will be 9,900 in the Air Force — 3,900 active duty, 5,100 Air National Guard and 900 reserves. The active and reserve components will be more integrated. Associate units will go up to 115 units from 100. Every state will be affected by either equipment or manpower adjustments. The Air Force is mitigating manpower reductions by re-missioning Air National Guard units to remotely piloted aircraft and ISR.

Beyond budget reductions that stem from last August’s deficit-cutting and debt-ceiling law, the Budget Control Act of 2011, the Air Force secretary noted changes to operational tempo that are helping to drive these changes. “Dec. 17 was the first day in over 20 years that the U.S. did not fly a sortie over Iraq,” Donely noted. On the other hand, the Libyan campaign forced the Air Force to respond to a military emergency “in a matter of hours,” which means a demand for flexibility from that smaller force.

buglerbilly

02-02-12, 10:23 PM

USAF Turning to Flexible Multirole Aircraft

Feb. 2, 2012 - 01:54PM

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

As the U.S. Air Force shrinks, multirole aircraft are going to play an ever larger role in the service’s inventory, the air arm’s top civilian official said.

The service’s strategy “favors retaining multirole capabilities going forward,” Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said Feb. 2. “The tactical air forces are going to get smaller and still be required to address a broad spectrum of threats.”

Donley, who was speaking at an Air Force Association-sponsored breakfast, cited the ubiquitous Lockheed Martin-built F-16 Fighting Falcon as an aircraft that will be protected. Conversely, the Air Force is divesting itself of five squadrons of single-role A-10 Warthog close air support planes — about a third of its fleet.

Dan Goure, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, Arlington, Va., said the Air Force was forced into the decision by “the tyranny of sustainment costs.”

The service can’t afford the cost of maintaining fleets of specialized aircraft, he said. But not having specialized aircraft might mean the service ends up with planes capable of performing many missions but not doing any particularly well, Goure said.

“That’s what the F-35 is relative to the F-22,” he said. The F-35 is a multirole stealth fighter jet, while the Raptor is a purpose-built air-to-air killer par excellence.

Moreover, new aircraft, such as the Air Force’s new bomber, are going to be built to do many missions, but they might not be well optimized for any particular mission, Goure said. But investment in advanced subsystems and weapons may overcome many shortcomings.

“The enablers and weapons need to be even better to make up for the loss of capability in the platform,” he said.

Given the delays on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, the Air Force will modernize the F-16, Donley said. About 350 F-16s will be given added capabilities and have their airframe lives extended.

Extending the service life of the F-16 is cheaper than buying new versions of the Fighting Falcon, Donley said. When asked if he could consider buying new versions of the venerable jet, Donley flatly replied: “No.”

Nor will the Air Force or Defense Department budge from the overall number of tri-service F-35 aircraft they want to buy from the current total of 2,443. While the Defense Department might make short-term adjustments, Donley reiterated the Pentagon’s full commitment to the program.

“I’d like to put this to bed as well as I can today,” he said. “The decisions about the size of the F-35 fleet, we’ve made no changes in that. Those are decisions for the 2020s.”

Making any such changes now would have no bearing on forthcoming budget cuts because the bulk of those buys falls outside the next five-year defense plan or even the next 10 years, Donley said.

But shifting to aircraft that can do more than one mission is not limited to the tactical fighter fleet. Donley said the reason the C-27 light turboprop transport will not only be canceled but existing aircraft retired is because the C-130 is more versatile.

“C-27 is another prominent program where we think we have good alternatives,” Donley said. “We have demonstrated the ability of the C-130 to support the direct-support mission.”

With a smaller fleet, the Air Force needs to maintain common aircraft configurations. Donley cited efforts to bring the service’s F-22 Raptors to a common configuration as one example. Others include the remaining fleet of upgraded C-5M Galaxy strategic airlifters, the extended-range C-17 strategic airlifters, Boeing’s F-15C fighter and the F-16, he said.

“Common configurations will give us operational flexibility,” Donley said.

geof

03-02-12, 12:11 PM

.. These cuts seem strange in the shadow of interesting times ahead .. ??

buglerbilly

03-02-12, 01:05 PM

U.S. plans $2.8 billion upgrade of F-16 fighter

By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON | Thu Feb 2, 2012 7:14pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force said Thursday it plans a $2.8 billion upgrade of about 350 of its aging F-16 multi-role fighter planes to help offset slower purchases of the next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The work, running into the 2020s, will extend the service life of select F-16 airframes. Other upgrades include advanced radar, sensors, cockpit display, electronic warfare and communications capabilities, the service said.

"We have worked through the implications of the delays in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program," Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told the Air Force Association earlier in the day. "And we have made a further commitment this year to modernize about 350 F-16s in the fleet going forward."

Ann Stefanek, an Air Force spokeswoman, said the upgraded F-16s would receive active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar. Northrop Grumman Corp and Raytheon Co build rival systems and are likely to compete for the work.

"Overall, the program will run into the 2020s and have an estimated total cost of $2.8 billion," Stefanek said in an emailed reply to queries from Reuters about Donley's remarks.

The Air Force will pick the "best of the fleet" to undergo the modernization for later-model Block 50 and some Block 40 F-16s, Stefanek said. The program is "scalable" based on the service's fighter needs, she added.

The Air Force has just over 1,000 F-16s in its current inventory, of which about 640 are Block 40/50s, distributed among active, Guard and Reserve components. None has yet undergone the structural "service life extension program" or capability upgrades now planned, the service said.

Lockheed Martin Corp builds both the F-16 and three versions of the radar-evading F-35, which is in low-rate initial production in a program co-financed by the United States and eight partner nations.

More than 4,450 F-16s have been delivered to 26 nations since the program started more than 30 years ago, including 54 follow-on buys by 15 customers, according to Lockheed, the Pentagon's No. 1 supplier by sales.

The U.S. F-16 modernization could point the way for modernization of many such F-16 fleets worldwide.

The U.S. Defense Department, in its third F-35 program restructuring in as many years, is set to trim 179 Joint Strike Fighter planes from production between 2013 and 2017. This would pare the number built for the U.S. military to 244 from 423 during this time.

The F-35 slowdown will help satisfy a congressional mandate to cut $479 billion from the Pentagon's budget over 10 years as part of a U.S. deficit-reduction push.

The service will focus on "common configurations" for its key aircraft to maximize operational flexibility and minimize sustainment costs, Donley told the Air Force Association audience.

Bill McHenry, director of business development for Lockheed Martin's F-16 program, said Block 40 and Block 50 models were originally projected to have 8,000 hours of service life, depending on loads carried and other factors.

But they were exceeding original expectations and may be capable of as much as 12,000 hours of service, for instance with new bulkheads and other structural changes typically costing less than $1 million per plane, he said in a telephone interview.

The United States is about to pit Raytheon Co against Northrop Grumman to supply the AESA radar for a potential $5.3 billion retrofit of Taiwan's 145 F-16A/B Block 20 aircraft. The Taiwan deal also includes 128 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing systems, upgraded electronic countermeasure pods plus a range of munitions, parts and logistical support.

McHenry said the Taiwan upgrade could benefit the United States and other F-16 customers to the extent it would shed light on common integration issues.

"Clearly, whatever integration is done would be able to be applied elsewhere," he said. One of the key objectives among F-16 users is to prepare to be "interoperable" with the F-35, for instance with increased computer processing power, seamless communications and greater sensor capability, McHenry said.

(Reporting By Jim Wolf; Editing by Dave Zimmerman and Steve Orlofsky)

buglerbilly

04-02-12, 01:22 AM

Precision Munitions Lessen Need for Close Air Support Plane: Schwartz Answers the A-10 Question

By Colin Clark

Published: February 3, 2012

PENTAGON: One of the longest-running debates between the Air Force and the Army centers on close air support. Historically, the Air Force hates supplying CAS and doesn't like buying or maintaining the planes that do it. But the white scarf boys wouldn't let the Army do the job either, since it involved fixed-wing aircraft and shooting and that's what the Air Force does.

So when the Air Force announced it was scrapping a large chunk of the current A-10 Warthog fleet and the pilots who go with it -- five squadrons worth -- the Pentagon's back channels quickly filled with disgusted comments about how "there goes the Air Force again." Every time they need to cut money from the budget the first thing they do is cut the A-10s, which have provided superb close air support ever since they started flying in the mid-70s, critics said. Two things make the A-10 especially fine at CAS: its amazing 30mmm cannon which can destroy a tank with ease; and the titanium bucket within which the pilot sits. The armored aircraft provides pilots with great protection, allowing them to be almost cavalier as they operate in dangerously kinetic environments.

On top of those attributes, the A-10 can fly low and slow with great stability, operate in nasty places, take a lot of damage and keep flying, be easily maintained and is just really well designed to do its job. But, you can hear Army guys saying, it's not a fighter and traditionally works closely with the Army so the Air Force doesn't like it.

Well, the current Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz belies that traditional Air Force image. He's a veteran special forces guy. He bleeds at least as much purple as he does blue (translation: he strongly supports joint operations). He has wholeheartedly pushed the service to open its mind and arms to Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and often publicly praises Air Force personnel who fight on the ground in unconventional Air Force jobs.

Given the important cultural, operational and symbolic implications of cutting the five A-10 squadrons, I asked Schwartz today how he could justify slashing the fleet. First, he pointed to fact that 246 A-10s will remain in Air Force service. "The bottom line is, as remarkable as the A-10 is, it isn't the only machine that does close air support," Schwartz told reporters at a briefing this afternoon. He mentioned the B-1 and B-52s as delivery platforms, which may seem weird to some ground huggers, but the fact is that precision guided munitions allow planes flying a great heights and great speeds to deliver highly precise and devastating attacks against ground forces. Of course, they often depend on ground-based tactical air controllers to deliver those munitions, but they are effective.

On top of that, Schwartz and Air Force Secretary Mike Donley made clear that the service has made a strategic decision to use multi-role aircraft as much as possible. The Warthog has one main role.

In other news, the Air Force released a paper today detailing some more budget cuts before the Feb. 13 rollout. The C-130 Avionics Modernization Program will be canceled and replaced with a much more modest program.

Altogether the service will eliminate more than 280 aircraft over the next five years: 103 A-10s, 21 older F-16s, 27 C-5As, 65 C-130s, 20 KC-135s, 21 C-27s and 18 Global Hawk Block 30s and 11 RC-26s.

Finally, it will rebuild 350 F-16s (a Service Life Extension Program) to help bridge the gap created by the slowdown in F-35A production caused by concurrency.

buglerbilly

09-02-12, 10:49 AM

Air Force seeks 18,000 iPads for cargo flight crews

By Bob Brewin 02/06/2012

This story has been updated and revised to clarify that the Air Force is looking for iPad2 or equivalent devices.

The Air Force organization responsible for hauling troops and equipment around the world plans to buy up to 18,000 Apple iPads to replace the paper charts and technical manuals its flight crews carry. Air Mobility Command's planned purchase is potentially the largest single federal order for the tablet computer widely embraced in the commercial marketplace but with low government sales due to security concerns.

In January, the Air Force Special Operations Command said it planned to buy 2,861 iPad2 tablet computers to serve as electronic flight bags for its crews.

AMC said in a notice posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website Thursday that it planned to buy "a minimum of 63 and a maximum of 18,000, iPad 2, Brand Name or Equal devices" for the crews that fly cargo aircraft such as the C-5 Galaxy and C-17 Globemaster. Lt. Col. Glen Roberts, AMC public affairs director, said the command "is looking for a tablet device, not necessarily an iPad."

The command intends to issue a request for proposals at an unspecified date to buy the tablets at the lowest price through a firm, fixed price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract.

Maj. Gen. Rick Martin, AMC director of operations, said in December 2011 that "moving from a paper-based to an electronically based flight publication system will not only enhance operational effectiveness, it can also save the Department of Defense time and money."

Military officials elsewhere also are anxious to get Apple's mobile technologies into the hands of troops. The Apple operating system, which powers both the iPhone and iPad, has not yet received security certification from the National Institutes of Standards and Technology. Michael McCarthy, who runs the Army's smartphone project, estimated in November that it would be nine months to a year before the system was certified -- August 2012 at the earliest.

Nonetheless, McCarthy was planning to send 20 iPhones to a unit in Afghanistan he declined to identify.

The 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing (Forward) equipped crews of attack helicopters, AV-8B Harrier jets and KC-130J aircraft with iPads in Afghanistan last summer. The project was initiated by a pilot, Capt. Jim "Hottie" Carlson, an AH-1W Cobra pilot with Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 369, according to a Marine Corps press release.

Maj. Marc Blankenbicker, the lead fire control officer for the KC-130J detachment, said the iPad can store the equivalent of 500 grid reference charts. "Instead of scanning sheets of paper, we type in a sector name or a four-digit grid coordinate and the iPad will center on the desired area," he said.

Although Air Mobility Command did not specify whether it planned to use National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency flight information publications, which are updated monthly, or commercial flight charts, the Jeppesen division of Boeing Co. said in a press release it plans to offer military versions of its Mobile FliteDeck software for the iPad this year.

In May 2011, the Federal Aviation Administration approved electronic flight bags for commercial carriers using digital navigation charts provided by Jeppesen.

The FliteDeck software can be downloaded from the Apple App Store. A package of worldwide navigation charts takes up 1.5 gigabytes of memory, or about 10 percent of the memory available on a low-end iPad, which has 16 gigabytes of memory.

ADMk2

09-02-12, 01:31 PM

Hope they remember to put their iPads in airplane mode and switch them off before takeoff and landing...

:D

buglerbilly

09-02-12, 10:15 PM

Yeah, I'd love to hear WHY airlines still think this needs to be done.............

Marc 1

10-02-12, 02:57 AM

Yeah, I'd love to hear WHY airlines still think this needs to be done.............

That and the other great mobile furphy - the exploding car when using your phone at the servo. Had some moron stop the pump I was using when I was filling the car a few weeks back.

buglerbilly

11-02-12, 12:29 AM

The Rise And Fall Of Global Hawk Block 30

Feb 10, 2012

By Amy Butler
Washington

In 2001, the U.S. Air Force officially took over the Northrop Grumman Global Hawk unmanned air system (UAS) project, now estimated to cost $12.4 billion for 55 aircraft, and embarked on its development. Within months, the momentum behind the high-flying spy aircraft grew. The young UAS was rushed into operation in the Middle East after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and service officials began crafting plans for a larger, more capable design, dubbed the Block 20/30, that was intended to take over the role long held by the U-2.

Thus, the Global Hawk became the first UAS that the Air Force developed to take over an entire mission—high-altitude intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance—handled by an existing piloted aircraft. UAS have become more prevalent in the Pentagon’s arsenal since then, especially because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, at that time, this notion was highly controversial within the Air Force, and for years the Global Hawk and U-2 communities fought for resources and favor among Pentagon leadership.

Now, 10 years later, the ambitious plan to retire the U-2, which is limited by the 10-12 hr. a pilot can spend in the cockpit, in favor of a Global Hawk capable of more than 24 hr. of flight in a single sortie, has been dashed. The Air Force blames high operating cost and low sensor performance. And it would be easy to blame that on reduced defense spending. But the history of this program is far too complex for such a simple answer.

The Global Hawk had a troubled upbringing—with two massive Nunn-*McCurdy cost overruns, multiple aircraft crashes and inconsistent support from its sponsor service and Capitol Hill. But, in parallel with these challenges, the UAS accrued a record of service alongside the venerable U-2 it was slated to replace. This included a decade of missions at Al Dhafra AB in the United Arab Emirates, flights over Haiti after the earthquake in 2010 and Japan after the tsunami compromised a nuclear power plant last March, aiding NATO strikes in Libya last year and supporting surveillance requirements in South America.

“If we had to do it all over again, we would do it differently,” says Gen. (ret.) John Jumper, Air Force chief of staff when Global Hawk demonstration aircraft, crafted under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Tier II+ program, were quickly deployed by USAF to the Middle East.

Despite being the epitome of so-called spiral acquisition—designed to field new technologies rapidly through incremental capability improvements—the program became a victim of the Air Force’s overly ambitious appetite, Jumper says. “We did not do a good job of controlling the requirements of making the Global Hawk a plug-and-play platform,” he acknowledges, and eventually, “Global Hawk priced itself out of the market.”

Jumper concedes that the Air Force’s decision not to retire the U-2 in favor of the Block 30 Global Hawk is a setback for a service that prides itself on leading technology at the Pentagon. The UAS carries the Raytheon Enhanced Integrated Sensor Suite (EISS) and Northrop’s Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload (ASIP), the multiple “ints” required for it to take over the U-2’s mission. “Eventually that mission will be an unmanned mission,” he says. “It is just going to take 20 years longer to do it.”

Gen. Norton Schwartz, Air Force chief of staff, says the decision to end production of the Block 30s and mothball those already produced was twofold. First, the UAS did not eclipse the high-flying U-2 as expected by achieving a lower operating cost. Second, it fell short of expectations compared to the performance of the U-2’s Goodrich Senior Year Electro-Optical Reconnaissance System (Syers). “The reality is that the Global Hawk system has proven not to be less expensive to operate than the U-2, and in many respects the Global Hawk Block 30 system is not as capable—from a sensor perspective—as is the U-2.”

Though lawmakers seem at least willing to accept a production termination, the idea of storing 18 aircraft, the product of $3.4 billion in spending, is being met with criticism. “They are going to take a shot to the head on that one,” says a congressional aide. “I hope it is worth it.” At issue is the savings of not operating the Global Hawks as well as the added cost of ensuring that the U-2 fleet has appropriate support to pick up most of the slack.

Lawmakers are skeptical of the rationale, as the Air Force said in a memo to Congress that, “while the U-2 is less expensive to operate on a per-hour basis, its limited endurance requires multiple aircraft in order to maintain 24-hour continuous coverage of a particular location. When analyzed in the context of the Global Hawk mission, the U-2 costs $220 million per year more than the Global Hawk.”

The reality, however, is that in the scramble to reduce spending, the Pentagon is choosing to jeopardize its ability to surveil a number of places around the globe at one time using high-altitude assets, says a Pentagon official.

The service has yet to say how much in annual savings can be garnered by not operating the Block 30s. The Air Force planned to buy 31 Block 30s; 18 are on contract.

The Pentagon declared the Global Hawk critical to national security just last year, when it certified the program in this memo after its second cost overrun. The Air Force also seemed to accept what shortcomings were inherent in the EISS. The service declared initial operational capability for the Block 30, despite reservations from the testing community. EISS Infrared detection performance at range was troublesome, though it was sufficient when the aircraft was directly over target. So-called slant ranges, however, are important for aircraft surveilling across borders.

Additionally, ASIP, designed to spy on communications and air defense systems, was “very limited,” according to the tester’s report. Though ASIP detected a large number of signals, it had trouble geolocating them, which is important to cue other aircraft or weapons onto a target. At the time, Northrop Grumman outlined a series of fixes to address these issues.

“I don’t necessarily agree with that assessment,” says George Guerra, Northrop’s Global Hawk vice president. The imagery products are “extremely high-quality. I honestly don’t think people are aware of the sensor performance.” But Northrop officials investigated complaints about EISS performance and, “we started to realize we were sort of exonerating the sensor,” he says.

Fixes are being made to improve ASIP, which is also flying on the U-2 along with the legacy RAS 1R signals-intelligence collection system.

However, Jumper suggests that the marriage of the Global Hawk and its sensor packages was flawed from the outset. “These were the contractual relationships that came along when the aircraft was handed over to the Air Force,” he says, noting that the service would have preferred to have managed its own sensor competitions.

Cost is a thorny issue. The Global Hawk experienced two major development overruns, but in 2005 and 2011, the Pentagon opted to keep the program going when it had a chance to kill it. The first overrun was largely based on misjudgments by the Air Force and Northrop about the complexities of expanding the size of the Global Hawk from the Block 10 RQ-4A version, carrying 1,000 lb., to the Block 20/30 RQ-4B, carrying 3,000 lb. The Block 20/30 was needed to enable the UAS to carry ASIP as well as the EISS, coming closer to the multi-intelligence collection capabilities of the U-2, which can haul 5,000 lb. of sensors.

The promise of the Global Hawk, though, was premised on balancing sensor performance—including possible degradation compared to U-2 sensors—against the benefits of longer endurance.

Northrop objects to the notion that the UAS costs more to operate. “Decisions [were] made that are sort of skewing the data,” Guerra says. “In my mind, you would want to go to an apples-to-apples comparison, [and] when you do that, you will see that [the Global Hawk] is more effective.”

An example, he says, is that costs shared between the two programs because they are collocated—such as security and infrastructure—are not equally split, tipping the cost in favor of the U-2. In fiscal 2011, the Air Force charged the U-2 program $400,000 for security, while the Global Hawk shouldered $7.5 million of the bill. Also that year, the U-2 program paid for $2 million worth of base infrastructure support, while the Global Hawk was charged six times that amount.

Air Force officials did not provide flying-hour data, but removing these unbalanced charges results in Global Hawk flying hours costing $1,500 less than the U-2’s, says Mike Isherwood, a Northrop analyst working on the program.

The reversal on the Global Hawk is clearly abrupt, given the Pentagon’s supportive moves last year and the agreement by the Air Force and Navy to collocate the aircraft and share parts and supplies where possible to reduce the cost for both their fleets. The Navy is buying 70 Block 40 variants optimized for maritime surveillance, with the last delivery slated for 2028.

Navy officials say savings are possible, despite the potential loss of the Block 30. The two services “still plan to jointly base [the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance] UAS and Global Hawk at overseas locations to eliminate redundant efforts,” says Capt. Jim Hoke, Navy BAMS program manager. Basing options in the U.S. will be reviewed soon; Air Force Global Hawks are now based at Beale AFB, Calif., and Grand Forks AFB, N.D. “Additional synergy initiatives continue to be reviewed . . . which will generate cost savings for both programs,” Hoke adds.

Northrop is “disappointed” at the decision, Guerra says. It is continuing to produce Fire Scout unmanned rotorcraft, though the baseline platform is outsourced, and work on the Air Force’s B-2 fleet and Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar Systems. But aircraft production opportunities are waning.

With the Block 40 aircraft, designed to carry the Multi-Platform Technology Insertion Program (MP-RTIP) ground surveillance radar, having been delivered to the Air Force, there will be “a little bit of a gap shaping up” on the already low-rate production line, Guerra says. He hopes to fill that with orders from South Korea or Germany. Berlin’s first Euro Hawk is scheduled for delivery this year, with another four potential sales. Seoul is considering four aircraft.

Meanwhile, Northrop is mounting a campaign to save the Block 30.

“We tend to compare the [Global Hawk] to the U-2 based on what the U-2 can do,” says Ed Walby, a business development executive for Northrop. He suggests asking: “What is it that the U-2 can do that the Global Hawk does today?” noting that the endurance of the Global Hawk is a game-changer.

Photo: USAF

buglerbilly

13-02-12, 11:10 AM

SGA 2012: NG considers reducing Global Hawk running costs

13 February 2012 - 8:43 by Andrew White in Singapore

Northrop Grumman is studying ‘more efficient ways’ of operating the RQ-4 Global Hawk Block 30 UAS in order to reduce costs and force the US Department of Defense (DoD) into a dramatic U-turn, Shephard has been informed.

According to senior executives within the company, Northrop Grumman is looking at the ramifications and impact of the DoD’s decision on 26 January to cap the programme in favour of Lockheed Martin’s U-2 aircraft- a platform which has been in operation since 1956. Speaking to Shephard, Northrop Grumman executives said meetings were ongoing with USAF and OSD officials.

Further details of the cuts were expected to be unveiled in budget proposals submitted to Congress on 13 February. One company source said: ‘The air force has expressed concern at the loss of capability in theatres and we are having meetings with the air force and OSD and discussing what it would mean if [cuts were] implemented. This is a proposal and not a final decision.’

Claiming that the system was performing ‘very well’ overseas on operations, sources said the decision was budgetary and not value-driven. ‘[Global Hawk Block 30] programme of record was set up to replace the U-2 with all the same support mechanisms. For example, about a third of the U-2 fleet would be deployed while the remainder stay home for training and mission preparation. ‘Global Hawk doesn’t need to do that. These were assumptions made when we built the programme but it can be “skinnied” down considering what we’re learning,’ they added. ‘Most training for Global Hawk is conducted on the job during missions. There are huge savings for the training tail.’

Admitting that there were ‘deficiencies in sensors’ compared to the U-2, officials conceded that there were ‘niche capabilities’ that the U-2 held over Global Hawk. Conversely, they said: ‘There are things that Global Hawk does with sensors that U-2 cannot do.’ They added that official air force data unveiled in the middle of last year showed how U-2 was less expensive to operate than Global Hawk on a cost per flight basis. However, they claimed that these statistics had since been reversed. ‘There has been a change in the maturity of the system. One-time costs associated with it were assumed into the database,’ they continued while describing how the system had not completed its scheduled amount of total flying hours last year, thereby increasing operational costs per hour.

According to Northrop Grumman, there are daily discussions with different elements within the USAF regarding Global Hawk Block 30. ‘We are all waiting for the actual budget to drop. Our suggestions centre around how and where to save dollars.’

Meanwhile, company officials said they were in the midst of initial discussions with the Singapore government regarding Foreign Military Sales of the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) Global Hawk variant. Having described ‘general briefings’ with Singapore officials, a Northrop Grumman source said: ‘We chatted them up and are keeping them up to speed on BAMS. As they roll out their requirement, we will see where they stand.’

The first flight of the BAMS MQ-4C is scheduled to take place in the US during September with an initial operating capability due to be implemented for the US Navy by December 2015. Similarly, Northrop Grumman is keeping the Australian DoD informed of programme activity. Company officials were in Australia last week to discuss specifics with their System Design and Development partner. Elsewhere, it emerged that Northrop Grumman has responded to India’s RfI for a HALE maritime UAS.

buglerbilly

15-02-12, 11:46 AM

USAF cancels AMRAAM replacement

By: Zach Rosenberg Washington DC

19 hours ago

Source:

The US Air Force has cancelled the next generation missile (NGM) meant to replace both the anti-air AIM-120 AMRAAM and the anti-radiation AGM-88 HARM, both mainstays of the USA and its international allies.

The NGM programme, also formerly known as the joint dual-role air dominance missile and projected to cost up to $15 billion, was cancelled "for affordability reasons", according to Gen Edward Bolton, USAF chief budget officer.

The contest was eagerly anticipated by major aerospace companies, including Aerojet, Alliant Techsystems, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon.

Following the 13 February decision, the USAF will instead continue to buy AMRAAM and HARM weapons, both designs that date from the Cold War era, with no clear replacement in sight. As recently as December 2011, air force officials had placed NGM as a high priority, saying that not buying the weapon would create unacceptable operational risks.

Both Russia and China have been developing advanced long-range air-to-air missiles, while six European air forces will begin fielding MBDA's Meteor beyond visual-range weapon from 2015.

The US Department of Defense has invested heavily in technologies required for a new missile. Boeing won Air Force Research Laboratory contracts for an integrated sensor and fusing system, directional warhead and long-range rocket motor. Meanwhile the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency awarded Boeing and Raytheon contracts to develop a next generation missile propulsion system under the triple target terminator (T3) programme, which was intended to support NGM. The future of the T3 programme is uncertain.

Air-to-air combat, despite requiring cutting-edge technologies, is a very rare occurrence in modern warfare. Despite over a decade of warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, neither conflict resulted in air-to-air engagement, including during the initial invasions.

ADMk2

15-02-12, 12:01 PM

The AMRAAM -D is still in development and will have it's own P3I improvement program no doubt. ATK has been funded to find improved rocket motors for a 7 inch missile airframe and this will no doubt be progressed.

AARGM (although a navy program) is also still in development and seems a fine weapons so far.

The USA doesn't need a new weapon for a while yet...

buglerbilly

15-02-12, 12:06 PM

That's not what my brain dead "friends" in APA told me, their cook and the Lady down the street............that covers everyone of importance!

jack412

15-02-12, 12:20 PM

obviously you didn't know the AIM-120D has a " 20nm " range @ 50,000FT and the russian stuff has 3 times the range
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17hKtTr-pkc

ADMk2

15-02-12, 12:26 PM

obviously you didn't know the AIM-120D has a " 20nm " range @ 50,000FT and the russian stuff has 3 times the range
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17hKtTr-pkc

That's a new one on me obviously. A new one for users of the AMRAAM too I'd suggest...

Even SL-AMRAAM has a greater range than that and as useless as efficient subsonic Mach cruising speeds obviously are in the face of supercruising Sukhois that supercruise everywhere but their engines never burn out, one would imagine that the weapons range would be significantly longer than an SL-AMRAAM...

buglerbilly

15-02-12, 10:15 PM

What's Next in National Security Previous post Air Force Buys Fewer Drones — But Ups Drone Flights

By Spencer Ackerman Email Author February 15, 2012 | 4:30 pm

Photo: U.S. Air Force

One of the problems with the Air Force’s drone fleet? There aren’t enough humans to operate the flying robots. And it’s contributing to a surprising Air Force decision to buy fewer drones — even as its own budget plan calls for the robots to get much busier.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced weeks ago that the armed, unmanned Predators and Reapers will fly more often in the coming few years, going up to 65 combat air patrols, or CAPs — teams of up to four flying robots — “with a surge capacity of 85.” That’s up from 61 today. But the Air Force’s budget figures, released on Monday, show that the flyboys will slow down their drone purchases, rather than increase them.

Under last year’s defense budget, the Air Force bought 48 Reapers, the bigger, faster, more lethal descendant of the Predator. (The Air Force stopped buying Predators in 2010.) In the proposed budget, the Air Force wants to buy half as many — 24 armed, spying drones. And its budget chief, Maj. Gen. Edward Bolton Jr., was unsure when the service will start buying the next-generation, jet-powered, stealthy Avenger drone in earnest.

There are a couple reasons for the shift. One is that there aren’t enough airmen who know how to remotely pilot the things. Another is that the Air Force says it can do more stuff with fewer drones. And of course, there’s the budget crunch.

“It turned out, when the [Pentagon's Joint Requirements Oversight Council] established this past year the requirement of 65 CAPs, we determined we could meet that with this [reduced] production rate,” Bolton told Danger Room during a Monday afternoon briefing.

After the briefing, Brig. Gen. Les Kodlick, the Air Force’s public-affairs chief, told Danger Room that the reduced Reaper purchase has to do with flesh-and-blood concerns — namely a lack of airmen trained to fly the drones and analyze the data the robots collect.

Well, sort of, clarifies Jennifer Cassidy, an Air Force spokeswoman. “Manning was a consideration in reducing the MQ-9 Reaper purchases for [the next fiscal year], but not the only consideration,” Cassidy emails Danger Room. “The MQ-9 crew production rate and the attrition rate of the [Predator] allowed the reduction of MQ-9 purchases [next year] without impact to the Air Force ramp-up to 65 CAPs.”

But the Air Force has acknowledged it’s got a people problem with its unpeopled planes. “Our No. 1 manning problem in the Air Force is manning our unmanned platforms,” Gen. Philip Breedlove, the vice chief of staff, recently told the Los Angeles Times.

In recent years, the Air Force relaxed its restrictions on who can fly its drones, in order to make up the shortfall; there are pilots now flying Reapers who have never grabbed the throttle of a traditional aircraft. But it hasn’t been enough. Contractors are brought in to the drone bases to remotely pilot the Predators and Reapers, as well as to help analyze the endless hours of full-motion video they collect. Thousands of airmen have been shifted into new jobs, in order to better scour all the video.

Absent a big crash program to train up new drone experts– or switch to the Army’s preferred method of using pasty, video-gaming teenagers to pilot their robot planes — the manpower problem is likely to get worse. In the next few years, the sensor and video packages carried by Air Force drones are going to get more sophisticated, like when the panopticon Gorgon Stare spy suite comes online. And the Air Force will cut 9,900 personnel over the next year, although it’s unclear what specialties the cashiered airmen will have performed.

When top Pentagon officials like former Defense Secretary Bob Gates browbeat the Air Force into accepting 65 unmanned CAPs, top service officials complained that there was no formal “requirement” for the drones — no way of knowing when it had satisfied the other services’ need for robotic eyes in the sky. Even drone-backers at the top of the Air Force thought all those patrols were overkill. So it’s not surprising that they chose to slow the rate of drone buys, when budgets got tight.

Instead, the Air Force’s priority future upgrades and purchases are all in manned planes. Upgrading the software on the F-22 Raptor, even as it’s got big problems with its oxygen systems. Enhancing the radar on F-15s. Extending the service life of F-16s. Buying 19 new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, even as they develop 13 expensive new flaws. An arguable exception is that the service’s desired next-generation long range bomber won’t always be piloted by a human being; it’s “optionally manned,” as the Air Force calls it.

But a recent congressional study obtained by Danger Room explains the Air Force’s preference for manned planes. About 40 percent of the air fleet is robotic. Yet over 90 percent of the Air Force’s procurement money is spent on planes with a human in the cockpit. Of course, part of the allure of drones is that they are cheap. And obviously, drones are the weapon of choice for the Obama administration’s Shadow Wars against terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

Asked by Danger Room, Bolton said that the new budget figures “should not” be interpreted as a sign that the Air Force prefers its manned planes.

“This budget really is a manifestation of the strategy that was laid out by Secretary Panetta on the 26th of January,” Bolton said. “And so our real challenge within this budget was to first determine how we could build a budget that could implement that strategy, and then secondly, how could we do that within the necessary physical constraints as based upon the guidance of the Budget Control Act passed to us by [the White House].”

Except Panetta was clear that day that the Air Force would “provide unmanned capabilities through their operators as well” — and would increase its Predator and Reaper flights. The robots are still waiting for the humans to catch up.

buglerbilly

16-02-12, 11:23 AM

Another view of this...........from AOL.........

Air Force Ices MQ-X; Spends On Better Data Management

By Carlo Munoz

Published: February 15, 2012

WASHINGTON: The Air Force is holding off on filling the skies the next generation of the Reaper UAV. Instead of putting more aircraft into the air that gather more data, the service plans to focus on how to better manage the flood of raw intelligence already streaming in, says one top service officer.

The Air Force's intelligence shop is putting development of the next-generation MQ-X unmanned aircraft on ice, opting to back fill its unmanned fleet with upgraded versions of the MQ-9 Reaper, Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance chief Lt. Gen. Larry James said today.

The Air Force recently included plans to buy 24 new Reapers as part of the service's fiscal 2013 budget request sent to Congress on Monday. Initially, service leaders had planned to replace the the Reaper with the MQ-X, once the plane was fully developed. The new drone would have been able to operate in heavily defended airspace. The current Reaper and its predecessor the MQ-1B Predator, are not durable enough to operate in what are known as anti-access/active denial (A2D2) areas. However, James said the suspension of the MQ-X was a "near-term" decision, indicating service leaders could bring the program back at a later date. That additional time will allow Air Force leaders to incorporate lessons learned from the Navy's new Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstrator into the MQ-X, according to James. "It's [the] prudent way to move forward."

Until then, the Air Force's No. 1 priority for ISR ops will be how to get the raw intel gathered from its aerial drones into the hands of service analysts faster, James said. Lack of commonality between the aerial drones collecting information from the battlefield and the systems designed to process that info continues to hamstring combat commanders. It has become a monumental task to shift data between the various unmanned systems and move them into the processing, exploitation and dissemination (PED) cycle, Rear Adm. Bill Shannon, the Navy's program executive officer for unmanned aviation and strike weapons, told AOL Defense last week. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley has tasked Air Combat Command and the Air Force Science Board to find ways to improve the PED process. Gone are the days when intel analysts would pour over aerial photographs taken by U-2 spy planes looking for surface-to-air missile sites, as they did during the Cuban Missile Crisis, James said. "This is not your father's imagery analysis anymore," he said.

Moving away from buying more unmanned aircraft and focusing on the fleet it already possesses represents a strategic shift by the Air Force, defense aviation expert Phil Finnegan says. A clear example of this is how the service handled its Reaper and Predator purchases in the fiscal 2013 budget. "Reaper purchases were cut from 48 last year to 24 this year while Gray Eagle purchases were reduced from 43 to 19," Finnegan tells AOL Defense. "That is because there has been a shift of focus in favor of improving the capabilities of the overall system by adding money for training and ground stations." One example is how the service is looking to change way its network of Distributed Common Ground Stations moves data to service analysts.

The DCGS are the service's primary nodes for collecting and sharing intel gathered by unmanned aircraft stationed across the globe. This new road map will help streamline how that info is stored, categorized and moved to intelligence analysts. Air Force leaders are also exploring how to better integrate "non-traditional" ISR assets -- aircraft not originally designed to collect intel -- into the PED, he said. That work is ongoing and will likely inform the service's budget proposal for fiscal '14, which is already in the works, James said.

buglerbilly

18-02-12, 12:16 AM

USAF delays T-38 trainer replacement to 2020

By: Stephen Trimble Washington DC

3 hours ago

Source:

The US Air Force has confirmed its latest budget proposal delays fielding a replacement for the Northrop T-38 Talon advanced jet trainer by three years. The Fiscal 2013 budget proposal unveiled on 13 February postpones the initial operational capability for the T-X programme from FY2017 to FY2020, according to the Air Education and Training Command (AETC).

Contract award is also delayed one year to FY2016, the AETC said.

The command remains committed to replacing the T-38s, which entered service 51 years ago.

"They're reaching the end of their lifecyle," the AETC said.

The T-38Cs are also unable to perform certain functions that are necessary to completely train pilots for the Lockheed Martin F-22 and F-35s, such as in-flight refueling and aerial manoeuvres beyond 5gs.

The USAF currently uses Lockheed F-16s to complete the gap in training for pilots moving from the T-38 to the F-22. The demand is expected to increase sharply as the F-35 enters the USAF fleet in numbers by the end of the decade.

At least five airframers are already preparing to compete for the project.

BAE Systems has teamed up with Northrop Technical Services to offer the Hawk trainer. Lockheed plans to offer the T-50 Golden Eagle, which is manufactured by Korea Aerospace Industries. Alenia Aeronautica is offering the T-100, a US-built version of the M346 Master.

Meanwhile, Boeing has revealed a concept for a purpose-built trainer, featuring a V-tail and a single engine. Northrop's aerospace division also may be considering a separate bid.

While the USAF still operates more than 500 T-38s, the T-X programme has called for acquiring between 300-350 new jets.

buglerbilly

23-02-12, 10:26 PM

AFA Winter: Cutting C-27J was a ‘particularly’ tough choice

By John Reed Thursday, February 23rd, 2012 4:12 pm

Posted in Air, Policy

Buy 12 NOW! They'll be cheap enough for the RAAF to procure a dozen............a couple of spares always come in handy!

ORLANDO – The Air Force’s move to ax it’s brand new fleet of C-27J Joint Cargo Aircraft was an epecially hard choice given the promise the air service had made to the Army to use the aircraft to quickly resupply grunts in Afghanistan, said the Air Force’s top officer today.

“The C-27 descision was a particularly difficult one for me, because Gen. George Casey, when he was chief of staff of the Army, and I agreed that we would migrate the C-27 to the Air Force and I assured him that I wouldn’t back out,” said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz during a speech at an Air Force Association-sponsored conference here. “But that was $487 billion dollars ago.”

Schwartz was referring to the $487 billion spending cut the Pentagon has been forced to make in its budget plans for the next decade. As you know, the C-27J started as an Army program aimed at providing on-demand tactical airlift or important supplies to troops at remote combat bases. The Air Force eventually took over the effort, promising to dedicate the C-27s to that very mission. However, the service just announced that it will retire its brand new fleet of JCAs in order to save cash.

Schwartz went on to reiterate the Air Force’s justification for the cut, saying the service’s C-130s along with Army choppers can effectivly execute the urgent tactical resupply mission in Afghanistan.

“In the interim, we have demonstrated, I think convincingly, that the C-130 can do virtually all of the direct, time-sensitive mission critical support that the Army needs,” said the four-star. “We are committed to doing that or we will die trying. So ourt recommendation, accepted by the leadership in the department was to eliminate the C-27 weapon system, given the pressures that we face and to depend instead on the remarkable capability of 318 C-130s and an abundance of airdrop capability and other means to provide time-sensitive, mission-critical support to our ground force teammates.”

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/02/23/afa-winter-cutting-c-27j-was-a-particularly-tough-choice/#ixzz1nFLPddC5
DoDBuzz.com

buglerbilly

25-02-12, 10:40 AM

USAF Plans Wrestle With New Lethal Airspace

Feb 24, 2012

By David A. Fulghum

The U.S. Air Force still has impressive plans for the future, including tying space and cyber operations more tightly into its intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) operation. Driving that decision is the statistic that more than 90% of cyber intrusions are actually intelligence-gathering efforts.

However, near-term initiatives are showing a negative impact on ISR due to falling defense budgets and operational reassessments, particularly in a post-Afghanistan period. Concerns are now focusing on how to conduct operations in less-permissive airspace where a foe employs anti-access and aerial denial (A2AD) weapons and sensors.

A critical eye is being cast on the value of high-altitude, long-dwell ISR platforms, for example.

“Does more altitude buy you survivability, or does persistence provide a radical improvement in the ability to collect intelligence?” says Lt. Gen. Larry James, the Air Force’s deputy chief of staff and former director of signals intelligence for the National Reconnaissance Office. “I don’t think we know the answer.”

The Air Force will also examine the usefulness of small, unmanned aircraft in the more lethal A2AD world.

“Do nano or swarming remotely piloted aircraft buy you anything in that environment?” James says. “Those are things we’ll have to sort out.”

New decisions and studies already involve the Global Hawk, special missions aircraft, U-2s, airborne radar, ISR bases and next-generation unmanned aircraft programs. The need to field a stealthy aircraft that can both penetrate enemy defenses and persist in the battlespace for a long period appears to be receding for now.

“We may be able to penetrate, but not stay long,” James predicts. “There may be other systems that can stay on in the area [that include space and cyber tools]. Or maybe I improve my sensors so that I can standoff outside the threat. I don’t necessarily think all of those things need to be combined in one platform. I’d say we’re at the early stages of looking at new technologies like hypersonics for ISR platforms, the technology is not there yet.”

The plan to develop a stealth unmanned aircraft, the MQ-X, has dropped out of the budget.

“The Navy is developing capability in that domain,” James says. “We want to see how that plays out before we make any decisions on next-generation platforms. The Predator C Avenger is a platform we intend to use for test and evaluation.”

Those inputs and a series of upgrades to the already operational Reaper unmanned aircraft will guide decisions on new-start programs.

Ground Moving Target Indicator technology for the E-8C Joint-Stars airborne radar and Global Hawk block 40 programs will continue and impact fiscal 2014 budget plans. In addition, extra attention will be paid to special mission aircraft in the Air Force’s 55th Wing, which includes RC-135 Rivet Joint, Cobra Ball and Combat Sent.

“There is an analysis of alternatives-like activity to look at those special missions to determine the best solutions for airframes and sensors,” James says.

[B]Sensor mix

The decision to terminate the Global Hawk block 30 program and extend the life of manned U-2 aircraft is still reverberating in the Pentagon. There is no connection between that decision and the loss of a stealthy RQ-170 in Iran, James says. The primary factors were performance and cost.

“In the last year, the Joint Staff changed the high-altitude requirements for the U-2 and Global Hawk,” James says. “Based on that, the U-2 can meet the requirement for capabilities.

As to the sensor mix, the U-2 performance is better in the electro-optical and infrared [slices of the electromagnetic spectrum] and the capacity to get signals intelligence off the bird is better. It was a fiscal decision. We could invest in the U-2 and save dollars by terminating Global Hawk.

“The U-2 is viable into the 2020s and well beyond,” James says. “We are in the middle of upgrading the cockpit so it will have pressurization. That avoids things like pre-breathing.” New capabilities, like a hyper-spectral sensor to scan new parts of the spectrum for data, also are planned.

However, no one has yet figured out what to do with the newly built Global Hawk facilities.

“We have facilities in Guam and Italy, and frankly we’re in the middle of planning how to remove those assets and what the status of the bases will be,” James says.

Photo: Northrop Grumman

buglerbilly

26-02-12, 05:01 AM

Air Force plans two-year delay in developing new Cruise Missile

By Elaine M. Grossman, Global Security Newswire 02/24/2012

United States Air Force The B-52H Stratofortress bomber will likely carry the new missiles developed by the program.

The Air Force now plans a two-year delay in the development of a new $1.3 billion weapon to replace today's nuclear-capable Air Launched Cruise Missile aboard bomber aircraft, according to budget documents submitted to Congress last week.

Under current plans, the service in fiscal 2013 would spend $2 million to continue work on a secret "Analysis of Alternatives" that weighs various technological options for the new missile, called the Long-Range Stand-Off weapon or "LRSO" for short.

However, the "LRSO program start [is] delayed two years," the Air Force states in newly released charts on research and development funding. The service will save $39.4 million in its five-year budget plan by postponing the beginning of the cruise missile's technology development phase from fiscal 2013 to 2015, according to the documents.

In debuting its 2013 budget request on Feb. 13, the Defense Department announced a number of delays to other nuclear weapons programs. Those included two-year schedule slips for fielding both the Ohio-class replacement submarine and refurbished versions of the B-61 bomb.

The Pentagon did not reveal in several budget rollout reports and press conferences, though, that it was planning a similar two-year delay for the new cruise missile. A Defense Department spokeswoman this week deferred comment on the omission to the Air Force, which did not respond by press time to a question on the matter.

Maj. Gen. William Chambers, the Air Force assistant chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration, did acknowledge the delay during a Feb. 17 appearance at a nuclear weapons symposium in Arlington, Va., according to the independent news publication InsideDefense.com.

An official in the Air Force's nuclear office on Friday said the service postponed launching the cruise missile program because other efforts simply proved more important as defense spending tightens.

"The LRSO contract award was delayed until [fiscal] '15 to accommodate higher priorities in a constrained budget," Michael Hargrove, a technical adviser at the Air Force's strategic deterrence and nuclear integration directorate, said in a written response to questions. "We are slowing modernization, terminating or deferring numerous acquisition programs, but at the same time protecting the key programs most critical to future Air Force capabilities."

"It was purely a budget-driven decision," agreed one retired Air Force cruise missile program official in an interview this week. The former official requested anonymity in describing closed-door Pentagon discussions.

The Air Force had previously intended to spend more than $800 million on the LRSO research and development effort by 2015 . Given the latest program changes, the service is now slated to spend roughly $625 million on design and development of the new cruise missile by 2017, according to the new budget figures.

To meet a congressional spending-reductions mandate passed into law last year, the Defense Department has cut $259 billion from its five-year budget plan and a total of $487 billion over the next decade.

Conservative nuclear-weapon advocates on Capitol Hill view the multiple program delays as signaling failure by President Obama to fully fund nuclear armament and platform programs in coming years. The White House promised increased funding for nuclear arsenal and infrastructure modernization in the run-up to the Senate's December 2010 ratification of the U.S.-Russian New START arms control agreement.

"Delays of this [LRSO] program would only further confirm the administration's abandonment of its promises to modernize our nuclear forces," Representative Michael Turner, R-Ohio, said on Thursday in response to questions.

Turner, who chairs the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, recently led nearly three dozen other GOP lawmakers in calling on the White House to protect nuclear efforts from spending cuts.

He has also signaled plans to introduce new legislation aimed at holding Obama to nuclear program funding levels laid out more than a year ago in a so-called "Section 1251 Update" report. The White House had committed to requesting more than $85 billion over the next 10 years for constructing new nuclear research and production facilities and overhaul aging warheads.

Additional billions of dollars would be spent on modernizing nuclear delivery platforms including submarines, bomber aircraft and missiles.

In a dueling legislative initiative, Representative Edward Markey, D-Mass., and 34 other like-minded lawmakers on Feb. 8 introduced the so-called "SANE" Act of 2012, short for a "Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditures."

Formally dubbed H.R. 3974, the measure would cut $100 billion in nuclear spending over the next decade by reducing new ballistic missile submarines from 12 to eight, delaying development of a nuclear-capable bomber aircraft, and reducing the number of fielded ICBMs, among other provisions.

In response to questions, Markey on Friday said he would support a delay in the LRSO cruise missile effort and a reassessment as to whether the weapon is even needed at all. The SANE Act does not address planned funding for this missile.

"A delay is prudent in this budget environment, but really we should reconsider whether this nuclear capability is even necessary for our 21st century needs," said Markey, who sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

The Massachusetts Democrat would additionally support canceling the nuclear mission for the future bomber, known as the Long-Range Strike aircraft, though such a provision also is not included in the legislation he is co-sponsoring, his office told Global Security Newswire.

With today's cruise missile gradually aging, it is unclear whether the two-year delay for the LRSO missile would pose a problem for equipping the aging B-52 bombers or the future nuclear-capable Long-Range Strike bomber. The reams of new budget documents do not appear to include a fielding date for the new missile.

In the fiscal 2013 budget, the Pentagon preserved plans to go forward with developing and building 80 to 100 of the new-design bomber aircraft, adding that it could avoid unnecessary development expense by employing many technologies available today.

The future strike aircraft "will not need the same capabilities that were planned for the previous Next Generation Bomber," according to a Defense budget overview report. "The new bomber will incorporate many subsystems ... and technologies that are already proven."

The Long-Range Strike bomber -- which the Air Force now estimates at $550 million per aircraft -- will be ready for initial fielding in the mid-2020s, according to a service spokeswoman.

The Obama administration's 2010 update report on nuclear efforts said that today's B-52 aircraft -- the only bomber that carries nuclear-tipped Air Launched Cruise Missiles -- will remain "in the inventory through at least 2035 to continue to meet both nuclear and conventional mission requirements."

The Air Force said in its 2013 budget documents that it plans to retain today's Air Launched Cruise Missiles through 2030, and is currently undertaking a maintenance program to ensure the weapon continues to perform properly. Roughly 1,140 of the cruise missile's nuclear version, the AGM-86B, are currently in the Air Force arsenal.

"Service life extension of this critical weapon is essential to meet United States Strategic Command deliberate planning requirements," the new Air Force research and development planning charts state. The service in 2013 plans to spend more than $430,000 on an "aging and surveillance program" aimed at keeping the cruise missile's key components functioning.

In the meantime, the Air Force is working on the LRSO Analysis of Alternatives, which will "define the platform requirements, provide cost-sensitive comparisons, validate threats, and establish measures of effectiveness, and assess candidate systems for eventual procurement and production," according to the Section 1251 Update report.

Hargrove, the Air Force technical adviser, said that despite the funding crunch, the Air Force was able to include the $2 million in its 2013 plan so it could complete the major analysis, which began over the past few months.

The Air Force is also drafting its acquisition and contracting strategy for the future missile, according to the 2013 budget documents. The service plans to take Long-Range Stand-Off missile program plans to the Pentagon's top-level Defense Acquisition Board before the end of calendar 2013 for formal review and approval, which would allow it to move into the technology development phase.

Air Force documents show that this "Milestone A" decision -- led by the Pentagon's top acquisition official -- is to be taken during the first quarter of fiscal 2014, which begins on Oct. 1, 2013. A contract award for initial technology development would be made a year later, during the first quarter of fiscal 2015.

Some concerns, though, are already bubbling about the projected pace of development for the future missile.

After funding the LRSO effort in the single-digit millions of dollars in fiscal 2013 and 2014, the Air Force intends to boost spending on the cruise missile's development to $41.7 million in 2015. Research and development funding then would leapfrog more than 400 percent to $209.1 million in fiscal 2016, followed by nearly 70 percent growth to $352.9 million in 2017, according to service budget charts.

The former cruise missile official said there is talk in some Defense and industry circles that the ramp-up in funds may be "too steep," and that a race to get the new system procured could increase risks that the weapon would not meet technology expectations. The deeper concern is that the LRSO missile, if rushed, could fall short of military needs.

Pentagon leaders have "said they've slipped SSBN(X) and B-61 by two years," said the former official, referring to the future ballistic missile submarine and the nuclear bomb life-extension effort. "They've said that will give them more time to design and mature their plans."

The question now, the cruise missile expert said, "is that if you go from spending $2 million in 2013 to $200 million in 2016, [are] you ramping up [the LRSO program] too fast?"

One alternative approach, the former official added, could be to design and build one or two prototype LRSO cruise missiles, put them through flight tests to ensure the technology works, and then make any necessary changes before committing to the major funding that final development and production would demand.

buglerbilly

28-02-12, 09:51 PM

The Air Force Still Doesn’t Know What’s Choking Its Stealth Fighter Pilots

By Robert Beckhusen Email Author February 28, 2012 | 3:16 pm

America’s newest stealth fighters have a major problem: their pilots can’t breathe, due to some sort of malfunction in the planes’ oxygen-generation systems. For months, the Air Force has been studying the problem, which temporarily grounded the entire fleet of F-22 Raptors and may have contributed to a pilot’s death. Today, the Air Force admitted they still don’t know exactly what’s causing the issue.

“We have looked at everything on that system at the nth degree, and the bottom line is that there’s no smoking gun,” said Lt. Gen Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, the Air Force’s deputy chief of staff for Operations, Plans and Requirements. But Carlisle later told the Air Force Times that investigators from the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board have pinpointed a leak in the Raptor’s cooling system. Somehow, the cooling fluid was getting into oxygen system, blocking air from getting to pilots.

Problems with the F-22′s air supply date back years, resulting in two fleet-wide groundings in 2011 and the possible death of a pilot the previous year. The cause was likely a defect somewhere in the F-22′s On-Board Oxygen-Generation System, or “OBOGS.” With a failure in the OBOGS, pilots would be denied their oxygen. Then, it’s only a matter of time before developing “hypoxia and decompression sickness” — which can lead to blackouts. But no one knew exactly what the problem was, perhaps until now.

Along with the cooling leak, another problem may be “an interaction between contaminants and the materials in OBOGS that the service has yet to uncover.” Also, a problem has been found with the a valve connecting the oxygen system to the pilot’s mask. So when there’s a problem, the pilot may not have adequate warning or enough time to respond. Investigators have also previously pointed toward toxic nitrogen as a possible culprit, but this seems unlikely now.

But some combination of the above may have been what happened in the Nov. 10, 2010 crash in Alaska that killed Capt. Jeffrey Haney. According to investigators, a system responsible for channeling air away from the engines on board Haney’s F-22 began leaking. To prevent the air-dependent OBOGS from being contaminated, the system shut down — no more air. The Air Force blamed the crash on pilot error, but an examination from the plane’s black box recording found that Haney had attempted to switch on his emergency oxygen system before plummeting into the ground.

Meanwhile, the Air Force says it’s adding backup oxygen systems to the Raptor and is continuing to investigate. The stealth fighters have also been flying since October’s brief grounding. As a safety precaution the planes are flying above 50,000 feet, below the F-22′s normal operating altitude of 60,000 feet. Nonetheless, the F-22 is still flying with a lemon oxygen system, and without a fix in sight, that puts pilots at risk.

Photo: DVIDS

buglerbilly

28-02-12, 10:14 PM

USAF re-assessing 5th generation fighter numbers

By: Stephen Trimble Washington DC

6 hours ago

Source:

The US Air Force is re-assessing its numbers of so-called fifth-generation fighters, although it is still not backing off its commitment to buy 1,763 Lockheed Martin F-35As over the next 35 years.

The USAF now plans to operate about 185 Lockheed F-22As along with the F-35A fleet, amounting to a combined force of nearly 1,950 fighters with the stealth, manouevrability and advanced sensors that meet the service's definition for fifth-generation capability.

However, as cost increases and the budget reductions lowered planned orders of F-22As from 750 to less than 200 over the last 20 years, some have rasised questions about the USAF's ability to afford the full F-35A fleet size.

"As we look to our fighter force of the future as we move to the fifth generation, we are doing an assessment of that that number is," Lieutenant General Herbert "Hawk" Carlisle, deputy chief of operations, plans and requirements, told Flightglobal on the sidelines of an Air Force Association event.

Carlisle added that the USAF remains committed to buying 1,763 F-35As, but will also continue evaluating the overall number as time passes.

"We stilll believe we need that many in the out-years," he said. "But we have time to continue to evaluate that as we move forward."

The USAF has postponed purchases of hundreds of F-35As beyond the next five-year period as technical problems have delayed testing and manufacturing schedules. The service's lateest budget proposal calls for buying only 172 F-35As through Fiscal 2017.

Carlisle's remarks about fleet size came after the veteran Boeing F-15C Eagle pilot and future commander of Pacific Air Forces offered a defence of the USAF's heavy investments in fifth-generation fighter technology.

Despite the cost increases and technical glitches expereinced by both F-22 and F-35 programmed, the USAF expects to operate the most capable fighters in the world. While the F-22 is an air-to-air specialist and the F-35 is designed for ground attack, Carlisle said both fighters still have no equal.

"The F-22 does better air-to-groud than anybody than the F-35," Carlisle said, "and the F-35 does air-to-air better than anything in the world except the F-22."

Afterward, Carlisle acknowledged to reporters that maintaining sufficient quantities of fighters is still an important factor even as the capabilities of each fighter increase.

"There is a physical limitation. You can only be in so many places," he said. "If you have to [operate combat air patrols] in a South China Sea scenario or some Iranian/Arabian Gulf scenario --whatever those are -- there is a quantity requirement."

buglerbilly

01-03-12, 11:40 AM

F-22 redesign considered as oxygen system concerns linger

By: Stephen Trimble Washington DC

54 minutes ago

Source:

US Air Force leaders are considering a redesign of the Lockheed Martin F-22 but still have no answers for the oxygen system breakdowns responsible for another operational disruption.

F-22s based in Alaska were grounded for one day in mid-February after three separate pilots reported hypoxia symptoms, the Air Combat Command confirmed to Flightglobal.

It was at least the third temporary stand-down for the F-22 since the USAF deactivated the entire fleet for four months until last September.

But air force officials are no closer to identifying the cause of the string of incidents, including one fatal crash in November 2010 that was preceded by a failure of the pilot's oxygen supply.

USAF officials hoped an expert panel led by retired Gen Gregory Martin might yield the answer. The team has now reported its findings, but found no "smoking gun", said Lt Gen Herbert Carlisle, deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and requirements.

The USAF is considering a broad range of options, including redesigning the F-22 to include a back-up oxygen supply, Carlisle said. This would automatically detect an oxygen system malfunction and activate, he added.

The F-22 already is equipped with an emergency oxygen system, but it must be manually activated by the pilot after the onboard oxygen generation system (OBOGS) stops working.

Capt Jeff Haney was killed on 16 November 2010 when his F-22 crashed in Alaska. Haney inadvertently steered the aircraft into the ground while trying to reach a handle to activate his emergency oxygen system.

The OBOGS had already stopped functioning during the incident. An unexplained oxygen leak in the engine compartment prompted an automatic fire protection system to shut down the supply of bleed air to the OBOGS.

While Haney's supply of breathing air was cut off, other F-22 pilots have reported symptoms suggesting their air supply was not filtered properly.

buglerbilly

03-03-12, 01:59 AM

Air Force Gives $9 Million Award for as Many as 18,000 IPads

By Brendan McGarry - Mar 3, 2012 12:51 AM GMT+0800

The U.S. Air Force awarded a $9.36 million contract to buy as many as 18,000 Apple Inc. (AAPL) iPad 2s in one of the military’s largest orders of computer tablets.

Air Mobility Command announced the award today to Executive Technology Inc., a Phoenix-based computer services company, Captain Kathleen Ferrero, a military spokeswoman, said in a telephone interview.

Taking a cue from commercial airlines, the service will use the tablets to replace the bags of paper manuals and navigation charts carried by pilots and navigators.

“Aircrews fly nonstop worldwide missions and require access to flight publications both on and off the aircraft, throughout all phases of flight,” Ferrero said in an e-mail. The so-called electronic flight bags will help crews operate more effectively and safely, and support the Pentagon’s efficiency goals, she said.

Air Mobility Command, based at Scott Air Force Base in Illinois, provides transport and refueling services to the U.S. military using C-5, C-17 and C-130 cargo planes and KC-10 and KC-135 tankers.

The type of iPad the command is buying retails for $599, Ferrero said. The Air Force would buy it at a discount for about $520 a device, she said. The product comes with wireless connectivity and 32 gigabytes of memory, she said.

Funding Requests

The contract allows the Air Force to buy as many as 18,000 of the devices within a year of the award date, which was yesterday, Ferrero said.

“That doesn’t necessarily mean we’ll purchase all 18,000,” she said. “It’s contingent upon funding requests and approval.”

The Air Force has already bought 63 iPad 2s from Executive Technology, Ferrero said. The devices will be delivered within 30 days and undergo testing, she said.

The competition drew 24 proposals from interested companies, Ferrero said. She wouldn’t name the companies or say whether Cupertino, California-based Apple responded to the request. The command’s decision was based in part on the lowest- priced offer, she said.

“It was open to everybody,” she said. “We weren’t going to any specific vendor.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Brendan McGarry in Washington at bmcgarry2@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Stephanie Stoughton at sstoughton@bloomberg.net

buglerbilly

03-03-12, 02:11 AM

USAF C-130, F-16 Upgrades Get Near Term Focus

Mar 2, 2012

By Amy Butler
Washington

With a pared-down fiscal 2013 budget request on Capitol Hill and delays in the massive Joint Strike Fighter program, the U.S. Air Force is having to abandon a decade’s worth of modernization plans for its workhorse airlifter and fighter fleets.

Instead of buying hundreds of new F-35s early this decade and retiring F-16s and A-10s, the service is trying to avoid a possible gap. And, rather than embracing an ambitious, decade-long $6.4 billion upgrade for its C-130 fleet, the service is taking an appetite suppressant.

For its fighter fleet, the impending lump of spending on Lockheed Martin F-35s will continue to slip. Though this delays an inevitable, sizable bill in the short term, it means the Air Force must invest more cash in its existing fighters, which service leaders hoped to avert. Generals have said for years that their goal is to focus the tactical combat aircraft budget only on the Lockheed Martin fifth-generation F-22 and F-35, avoiding short-term investment in the legacy fleet. But delays in the F-35 flight-test program have consistently slipped the initial operational capability date (last year it was thought to be beyond 2018), forcing the Air Force to spend up to $2.8 billion for a service-life extension program (SLEP) for its Lockheed Martin F-16s in order to keep the fleet relevant amid uncertainty about the in-service date for the F-35.

Likewise, the service is abandoning a long-held plan to upgrade its various Lockheed Martin C-130s into a single configuration with new glass cockpits and avionics needed to comply with the updated air traffic management regulations. Instead, the Air Force will now pursue a simplified, less expensive kit to add only the needed communications and equipment to comply with global air traffic management requirements.

In total, the Air Force is retiring many old aircraft (including C-130s, F-16s and A-10s) and trying to ensure that those remaining in the fleet are as pristine and operationally relevant as possible.

The major defense contractors—Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman—are all bracing for fewer and fewer major purchases by the Air Force. In some cases, they are reeling from recent terminations or cutbacks. If Congress approves the Air Force’s fiscal 2013 budget proposal, Northrop Grumman’s Global Hawk Block 30s will be shelved, as will L-3 Communications/Alenia’s C-27Js.

The F-16 and C-130 upgrade efforts are expected to yield a much lower return than would a program as big as the service’s projected buys of bombers or trainers, but they are a near-term opportunity.

The F-16 SLEP will include up to 350 of the newest F-16s—Block 40 and newer—and is larger in scope than a structural SLEP considered two years ago by the service. This new program, estimated to cost $2.8 billion, will include an active, electronically scanned array radar for the single-engine fighter, says Maj. Luther Cross, F-16 program element monitor at Air Combat Command. Raytheon and Northrop Grumman have each developed radar options.

Also included will be a new center display unit for the cockpit as well as an upgraded defensive countermeasures suite and connectivity to the Integrated Broadcast Service constellation, which will provide intelligence data to pilots, Cross says.

The Air Force hopes to begin low-rate initial production on SLEP kits as early as fiscal 2016, with installations beginning the next year. Cross says the last aircraft is slated to receive the upgrade in 2022.

The program is expected to allow the F-16s to operate beyond 2025, by which time officials hope large numbers of F-35s will have begun service. But these F-16s will still be used for the suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses roles as the stealthy F-35 begins operations.

“We’ve committed to do service-life extension on about 350 of our multirole F-16s, some structures in the early-block airplanes, and then more extensive structure and avionics improvements on the more modern airplanes,” said USAF Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz. “The issue with respect to the F-35 is that obviously the planes are not delivering as quickly as we originally anticipated, thus the requirement to posture the legacy force to make sure that we retain the capabilities we need until the F-35 delivers in numbers.”

The Air Force decreased its planned buy of F-35As to 19 from 24 aircraft for fiscal 2013. This is one more than the 18 approved in the fiscal 2012 budget.

The SLEP will also include a long-planned structural upgrade. Currently, the structural life of the F-16 is limited to 8,000 hr. of flight. Modeling and simulation data available today suggest the service could extend its life to 10,000-12,000 hr., Cross says. In parallel with starting this new effort, Lockheed Martin is on contract to test the durability of the aircraft, a process that goes into 2014. The jig for the tests is being assembled now at Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth facility, and Cross says testing will begin on a Block 50 aircraft in November.

Vice Adm. David Venlet, the F-35 program executive officer, says he expects to fully understand what problems would need to be fixed on the Lockheed Martin F-35 around 2015, based on the projected maturity of trials at that point. By then, the F-16 SLEP kit development should be underway.

Meanwhile, the Air Force is also “right around the corner” from adding new software to the F-16 that would allow it to deploy for self-protection the service’s newest air-to-air-missile, the Raytheon AIM-120D, as well as the new 250-lb. Boeing Small-Diameter Bomb, optimized for striking small ground targets.

While the tactical combat aircraft fleet is requiring an unplanned infusion of money to stay current in the near term, the Air Force is proposing to substantially cut back spending for its tactical airlifter workhorse, the C-130. In doing so, it is abandoning the plan in place since the 1990s—once called the C-130-X—to substantially modernize as many as 13 variants of the airlifter into a common configuration that would fly alongside the new C-130Js entering service. Some suggest the effort, which became the C-130 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP), should have been terminated long ago as a gold-plated extravagance pursued by the U.S. Air Force while other C-130 operators worldwide modernized their fleets much more cheaply. Service officials had maintained, however, that the goal of crafting a unified “X-model” C-130 would have saved money in the long run on maintenance, supply and training costs.

Schwartz has emphasized in recent weeks that, to save costs, the service intends to keep as few variants of different models in the fleet where possible. But applying this to the large and diverse C-130 fleet became a bridge too far. “Over time, the J model will trade out [and] we will ultimately achieve a common configuration, but . . . it is simply unaffordable” to continue with the C-130 AMP, Schwartz tells Aviation Week.

He says that just by pursuing a more simple Communication Navigation Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) upgrade, the Air Force can keep 184 older C-130s flying in the most efficient air routes at less than 25% of the cost of the AMP effort. Air Force officials estimate they will save at least $2.3 billion by terminating the AMP, which included 221 aircraft at a cost of $6.4 billion.

This goal “is doable, . . . it is absolutely doable,” says Jim Grant, Lockheed Martin vice president of business development.

Some CNS/ATM kits will be needed by 2015 to comply with the earliest air traffic requirements; in some countries, they will not be needed until 2017. European civil air authorities typically have the most demanding CNS/ATM requirements in order for aircraft to operate in the congested air space there.

The demise of the C-130 AMP closes a long and somewhat inauspicious chapter in the Air Force’s procurement history. Former Boeing Vice President Darleen Druyun admitted that she unfairly steered the contract to Boeing; prior to her employment there she was a senior Air Force procurement official. As a result of the admission, the Air Force agreed to allow Boeing to continue developing the AMP kit, but produce only the first 24 kits. The intent was to eventually compete production of the units among the losing bidders of the original source selection—all of which had protested Boeing’s win after Druyun’s admission.

Cost overruns ensued during the course of the development, prompting a significant restructuring in 2005, which trimmed the buy from as many as 500 to 222 kits (now 221 due to an aircraft loss) and canceling plans to add the modification to special-operations aircraft.

Meanwhile, however, other countries have pursued much simpler C-130 ATM upgrades devised by companies including Esterline CMC Electronics, Marshall Aerospace and Elbit Systems. Original C-130 AMP competitors Lockheed Martin, L-3 Communications and BAE Systems are also likely to consider bidding for a forthcoming CNS/ATM program.

Photo: DoD

buglerbilly

04-03-12, 06:17 AM

USAF Reducing Possible JSF Basing Locations

Mar 2, 2012

By Amy Butler

The U.S. Air Force has begun reducing the number of bases at which it plans to eventually house the new F-35 in an attempt to reduce the estimated life-cycle cost of the single-engine, stealthy fighter.

Last year, the Pentagon disclosed an estimate of more than $1 trillion to operate the fighter for the next 50 years, raising significant concern from customers, including the U.S. Navy and Air Force. Since then, the services have been working to refine their plans to operate the jet in hopes of curbing operations and sustainment (O&S) cost.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz says the original cost estimate contained more than 40 operating locations for the F-35A, and “We are pressing down on that. We are in the low 30s now.”

Schwartz adds that the initial cost estimate is “of limited value” because it projected so far out into the future – 50 years. Typical cost estimates of this type span fewer years, he notes.

Fewer operating locations could dovetail with the service’s request to conduct new rounds of base closures with a hope of reducing as much as 20% of excess infrastructure being operated by the Air Force.

Meanwhile, Schwartz notes that the service is reviewing its O&S costs with a eye toward cutting costs across its sustainment activities. Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) — when a company is called upon to manage maintenance of a weapon system — is being looked at because it is often very costly. “The model for the F-35 is now largely CLS,” Schwartz says. “That may change.”

Meanwhile, Schwartz says the first F-35A flight at Eglin AFB, Fla., is slated for next week. This is a milestone for the program as nine F-35s have been at the base on the ground awaiting clearance to fly. That clearance was issued by the Air Force Aeronautical Systems Center on Feb. 28. Officials there said there were limitations to the flight profile but cited operational security as a reason for not articulating what they are.

Schwartz says initial flights of the F-35A and B will be conducted by one U.S. Air Force test pilot and one U.S. Marine Corps test pilot. Initially, they will conduct local area operations flights and gradually add to the flight profiles to reach portions of the syllabus that can be taught to pilot trainers.

This will continue until Air Education and Training Center Commander Gen. Edward Rice, Jr., is confident the wing at Eglin can conduct enough routine sorties to support early training requirements. His approval will be required to begin formal training.

Photo: Lockheed Martin

buglerbilly

07-03-12, 12:27 PM

USAF Approves C-130 Engine Upgrade Tests

Mar 7, 2012

By Guy Norris guy_norris@aviationweek.com
Los Angeles

The U.S. Air Force has funded flight tests of upgraded Rolls-Royce T56s on a Lockheed Martin C-130H aimed at increasing reliability and service life as well as cutting fuel consumption by around 8%.

The T56-15 Series 3.5 ‘enhancement’ kit is expected to undergo tests at Edwards AFB, California, around mid-2012. Originally launched in response to U.S. government calls for reduced dependence on foreign oil, the upgrade is expected to contribute to the Air Force’s target of reducing aviation fuel usage by 10% by 2015. Rolls unveiled first details of the effort in 2009 and, at the time, hoped to see flight tests begin in early 2011. However funding issues prevented the start of testing until this year.

The upgrade includes remanufactured compressor blades, single-crystal first-stage high-pressure turbine blades, and aerodynamically redesigned blades and vanes throughout the low-pressure turbine. The turbine upgrade is designed to increase component life by around 30%, and according to an Air Force analysis report, could contribute to overall long term savings of $3.5 billion over the lifetime of the fleet.

The upgrade, which can be accomplished as part of a standard overhaul, does not require any aircraft or engine control system modifications and could be installed on up to 220 C-130Hs. The kit is also expected to be made available for international C-130 users at a later stage and could potentially be adapted for the T56-14 version that powers the P-3 maritime patrol aircraft.

Rolls says the kit will enable the C-130H to continue in operation until 2040 while improving reliability and ‘hot and high’ performance. The upgrade is expected to increase the range of the C-130H with a 20,000-lb. payload to more than 3,180 naut. mi., from 2,845 naut. mi., compared with a standard Series 3-powered aircraft under identical conditions.

Rolls-Royce is building a $42 million advanced manufacturing facility in Indianapolis to produce components for the T56 series as well as the AE and commercial engine families. The new facility, which will employ more than 100 workers when fully operational in 2014, will additionally produce stators for the Trent XWB.

buglerbilly

07-03-12, 09:16 PM

US Air Force chief rejects pilot blame in F-22 crash

By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC

7 hours ago

Source:

Air Force chief of staff Gen Norton Schwartz says an accident investigation board did not blame Capt Jeffrey Haney for the fatal Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor crash on 16 November 2010.

"We did not assign blame to the pilot," Schwartz told the US Congress on 6 March. He acknowledged that the aircraft's bleed air valves - from which the jet's oxygen is derived - had shut down, depriving Haney of oxygen, and that this was a contributing factor.

However, Congressman Jim Moran countered: "The accident board blamed him."

Accident board president Brig Gen James Browne stated in the report: "I find the cause of the mishap was the [mishap pilot's] failure to recognise and initiate a timely dive recovery due to channelised attention, breakdown of visual scan and unrecognised spatial disorientation."

The sequence that led to Haney's crash began when his F-22 experienced a still-unexplained oxygen leak in the engine bay. As a precaution, a fire suppression system automatically closed the bleed air valves that feed compressed air to the onboard oxygen generation system.

As a result, Haney was forced to activate the emergency oxygen supply. However, he struggled to reach the pull-up ring while unable to breathe. At the same time, he may have inadvertently put the aircraft into a steep dive.

The onboard data recorder showed that Haney attempted a violent pull-up manoeuvre less than 3s before impact, but it was already too late and the F-22 crashed into a remote Alaska valley.

© US Air Force

The accident investigation board's determination that Haney was at fault has been widely maligned within the USAF pilot community, and is being investigated by the Pentagon's inspector general. The latter's move is highly unusual, one source familiar with such investigations says.

The air force, meanwhile, has been unable to find a single root cause for a series of airborne incidents where pilots have suffered from symptoms resembling hypoxia, Schwartz says.

The USAF has taken precautionary measures such as adding new sensors and air filtration systems, and having the pilots wear pulse-oximeters.

The F-22 Raptor fleet has flown a combined 8,000h since last year's five-month grounding of the stealth jet, but Schwartz acknowledges that there have been several incidents since the flight ban was lifted.

buglerbilly

07-03-12, 09:19 PM

USAF criticised over Global Hawk cuts

By: Dave Majumdar

6 hours ago

Source:

Members of Congress on 6 March harshly criticised the US Air Force's decision to place its recently acquired fleet of Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk Block 30 unmanned high altitude reconnaissance aircraft into storage.

The air force has 14 aircraft in service, while four more are being built by Northrop. All 18 would be retired in the fiscal year 2013 budget proposal.

© US Air Force

Among the most vocal critics was Congressman Norman Dicks, but almost every member of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee present voiced their dismay at the perceived waste of taxpayer dollars.

Testifying before the committee, USAF chief of staff Gen Norton Schwartz reiterated that the Global Hawk provides less sensor capability than the manned Lockheed U-2 for both electro-optical and infrared imaging and signals intelligence.

The Global Hawk is also less reliable than the USAF would like, but Schwartz conceded that the aircraft was improving.

It would, however, be costly to upgrade the RQ-4 to match the U-2's abilities, and the USAF does not have the money available. Schwartz said last week that the service saved $2.5 billion by retiring the Global Hawk Block 30 fleet.

The Block 30 variant specialises in collecting imagery and signals for intelligence analysts. It differs from the Block 40 variant, which specialises in ground moving target indication and remains in production.

buglerbilly

07-03-12, 09:24 PM

USAF seeks to bypass aircraft engine manufacturers

5 hours ago

The US Air Force is considering buying engine parts for some of its aircraft from third-party manufacturers, the service's top officials told the US Congress on 6 March.

"We have taken a look at competing some aspects of engine components and have seen potential for significant [cost] reductions," said air force secretary Michael Donley, during his testimony before the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. "We forecast a saving of $40 million," he added.

In recent years, several companies have received regulatory approval under the parts manufacturing approval (PMA) category to sell reverse-engineered parts for popular commercial engines, such as the CFM International CFM56.

Air force chief of staff Gen Norton Schwartz, testifying at the same hearing, said the service has had good experiences with buying refurbished commercial parts and parts built by third-party manufacturers for the CFM56-derived General Electric F108 turbofan installed on the Boeing KC-135 tanker fleet. The USAF's efforts have yielded some "very significant savings," he said.

The service is working to secure the data rights to the Pratt & Whitney F117 turbofan installed on the Boeing C-17 strategic transport, in order to pursue the same strategy for that fleet, Schwartz said. The USAF wants to pursue such a strategy for as many systems as possible, particularly for those that are not exclusive to the military, he added.

Meanwhile, the air force is planning to standardise its C-17 fleet with the Block 18 configuration of the aircraft. It will also retain 52 Lockheed Martin C-5Ms, which are being upgraded with new engines and reliability improvements from the C-5A, B and C variants. Modernising the C-5B is cheaper and more useful for the air force than buying additional C-17s, Schwartz added.

The air force, meanwhile, is cancelling the avionics modernisation programme (AMP) for some of its Lockheed C-130s, and will instead upgrade the older tactical transports with a more modest package of enhancements. Each AMP aircraft costs $19 million to modernise, whereas the new package will cost $5 million each, Schwartz said.

buglerbilly

08-03-12, 09:42 PM

Cyberthreats, Shortfalls Threaten USAF Plans

Mar 8, 2012

By David Fulghum, Bill Sweetman
Washington, Washington

As the U.S. reorients its forces to the Western Pacific, its strategy is already jeopardized by newly emerging cyberthreats as well as financial, personnel and technology shortages.

For example, one key surveillance and targeting tool—the long-range, active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, which is installed in the U.S. Air Force’s and Navy’s best warplanes—is vulnerable to cyberattack.

“There are ways to attack an AESA radar, but it takes a dedicated one-on-one effort,” says Lt. Gen. Herbert Carlisle, U.S. Air Force deputy chief of staff for operations. The threat can be mitigated by sensor fusion on an aircraft and by the radar’s electronic agility, he told an Air Force Association gathering of aerospace industry officials. Also, there are infrared, electro-optical and network backup systems that can provide information when something affects an AESA. There is a technique on which the Air Force is working that involves sensor fusion combined with network integration to take data from multiple sources to help counter electronic attack.

“If there are other AESAs [involved in the mission], they can form a network, and then there is a whole different fight,” says Carlisle.

For now, however, those systems can be disrupted. “From a cyber standpoint, AESA has introduced new vulnerabilities,” says a veteran black-world technologist and former fighter pilot. “They have a more continual wide field of view that can be exploited electronically.

“The threat is out there. The Russians—if you look from the standpoint of selling to everyone—and the Chinese have designed specific electronic warfare platforms to go after all our high-value assets. It’s going to be a major part of any campaign. You can’t separate electronic attack from cyberattack. The electronic attack can be the method of penetrating a system to implant viruses. With an [aircraft] you’ve got to find a way to get into the workings of that system, and generally that’s through some sort of emitted signal,” he adds.

More specifically, he notes that “the Chinese have electronic attack means specifically designed to counter E-3 AWACS early warning, E-8 Joint Stars ground surveillance radar, RC-135 Rivet Joint signals intelligence and P-8 maritime patrol aircraft, and others.”

Secure data links that are compatible among the services are another area that needs work for successful Air-Sea battle concepts. The Lockheed Martin F-22 and F-35 have separate data links that offer security for stealth operations, but they don’t have the bandwidth to support all of the data traffic that the Navy wants to transmit.

“For the future we are looking at the Advanced Tactical Data Link, and there is discussion right now between the Air Force and Navy on how to get to the next level with a [common] waveform,” says Carlisle.

Until last year, the Air Force planned to put the F-35’s Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) on both the F-22 (replacing the current Intra-Flight Data Link, or IFDL) and the Northrop Grumman B-2. MADL, like IFDL, is a low-probability-of-interception/-detection (LPI/LPD) link that uses multiple phased-array antennas to generate pencil beams aimed at the receiving aircraft. It is primarily intended to share target and own-ship status—such as weapons and fuel remaining—among a number of aircraft.

The F-35 also has the standard Link 16 to transmit information to other aircraft in nonstealth mode; but the only way that the F-22 can transmit at all, to any aircraft except other F-22s, is via voice radio. That shortfall is not addressed in the current F-22 upgrade plans, which extend out to 2020.

As for the B-2, it was supposed to receive an extensive over-the-horizon, LPI/LPD communications capability in the shape of the Extremely High-Frequency Increment 2 package, a sophisticated satcom system. However, after running through two iterations of antenna configurations, this plan has also been canceled and replaced by a very low-frequency system, for which a solicitation was issued in April 2011.

Also last year, MADL was dropped for the B-2 and F-22, to be replaced by a still-conceptual advanced tactical data link (ATDL). Carlisle indicated that the decision was influenced by Air-Sea Battle planning. “We’re trying to get to the next level. To be candid, not everyone understands the need for LPI/LPD. But we are looking for a waveform that allows for higher volumes of traffic.”

Another problem is that LPI/LPD conflicts with the goals of providing large volumes of on-demand data to many users. When the Air Force envisioned standardizing MADL across the stealth fleet, it also planned both interim and objective “gateways”—high-flying aircraft equipped to receive MADL traffic and disseminate it to the rest of the fleet.

The Air Force and Navy used gateway technology to bridge the incompatibility issues in a demonstration during which two Tomahawk land attack missiles were fired from a submarine, while an F-22 conducted surveillance, intelligence-gathering and precision location of the targets, and updated the cruise missile in flight.

“In the near term we will use gateways, and in the long term we will get the ATDL capability,” says Carlisle. He also mentioned improved stealth that will be part of the Long-Range Strike (LRS) bomber design.

Extremely low observability (ELO) on the LRS bomber will supplant the F-22’s very low observability (VLO).

“[The bomber’s stealth] is achieved with a combination of active, passive and other techniques that aid in the capability,” says Carlisle. “It’s not one thing or the other. But yes, there is a reduction [in the physical signature].”

More detail was provided by Air Force Gen. (ret.) Mike Loh, former chief of Air Combat Command. “It is the combination of stealth, electronic warfare, offensive and defensive cyber*operations, ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] and standoff weaponry [both kinetic and nonkinetic] that allows you to penetrate and defeat anti-access and aerial-denial systems,” says Loh. “It makes the VLO in fifth-generation aircraft, and the ELO we intend to have, more efficient. Without it, the penalties would be unaffordable. You need surveillance and reconnaissance to set up your targeting. You must have cybercapabilities to ensure you get the proper signals in and out of the cockpit. Then you may need some active electronic warfare like [the Miniature Air-Launched Decoy Jammer] or standoff jammers for some parts of the spectrum. It’s an integrated package.”

But whether there will be enough fighter aircraft and aircrews to meet the U.S.’s new Asia-Pacific strategy is an unanswered question.

buglerbilly

10-03-12, 01:01 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Putting the Joint in Rivet Joint

Posted by Robert Wall at 3/9/2012 8:33 AM CST

In the past year, there has been much attention on the budding cooperative relationship between the U.K. and France on security issues.

The discussions— over unmanned aircraft cooperation, joint weapons developments, partnering on milsatcom and other efforts—have overshadowed the strengthening of the U.S.-British ties in the far more sensitive area of signals intelligence. It is a domain where the U.S. and U.K. have been working together for decades, but the ties are getting even stronger.

As Douglas Barrie, our former colleague and the senior fellow for military aerospace at the International Institute of Strategic Studies, reports here, the U.K. decision to buy three RC-135 Rivet Joints has led the two countries to embark on a pooling system effectively leading to a 20-aircraft fleet. A U.S. budget document, highlighted in the IISS Voices item, notes that advantages of the pooling system include "complete interoperability with the U.K. ISR program; increased fleet size supporting greater operational coverage; increased funding for upgrades; U.K. manning of Joint Program Office."

The U.K. was looking to add some of its own sigint subsystems to the RC-135 fleet, so this pooling arrangement may suggest the U.S. fleet will be similarly upgraded.

buglerbilly

12-03-12, 12:21 PM

U.S. Air Force, Air Guard Lock Horns Over Cuts

Mar. 12, 2012 - 05:33AM

By KATE BRANNEN and MARCUS WEISGERBER

The U.S. Air Force has said that it will cancel the C-27J program. (U.S. Air Force)

As the U.S. Air Force goes head-to-head with the Air National Guard and governors from around the country, all eyes are watching to see how the Air Force fares in its effort to shed reserve capabilities as it deeply cuts spending.

So far, the Air Force has taken heat not only over its plan to cut Air Guard force structure and aircraft, but also the tactics it’s using to make its case on Capitol Hill.

For example, a briefing by an Ohio Air Guard captain being circulated inside the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill makes the case that the Air Force inflated the life-cycle costs of the transport program as one of the justifications to cancel the effort, which was intended for the Air National Guard.

Guard sources said the move is the latest misstep the Air Force has made in crafting and now defending its budget plan, which cuts 3,900 active-duty, 5,100 Guard and 900 reserve airmen. Air Force leadership, in a statement, said the Guard and active forces worked together on the plan.

This is all happening as the country’s adjutants general — the leaders of the Air and Army Guard within their states — were scheduled to meet in Washington over the weekend for the annual spring meeting of the board of directors of the National Guard Association of the United States (NGAUS).

The board meeting is a chance for the adjutants general to reinforce their opposition to the Air Force’s plan and vow to do everything they can, working with Congress, to reverse it, said Army Maj. Gen. Frank Vavala, the adjutant general for Delaware and chairman of the NGAUS board of directors, in a March 9 interview.

The Army is watching this fight closely. It wants to see if the Air Force will get away with drastically reducing its Guard structure, one Army source said. A lot is at stake in this first round of fighting, and the lessons that emerge from it will shape where the Army decides to cut its force structure, the source said.

“I think the Army is looking out there to see how the Air Force fares before they take a run at us,” Vavala said.

The Air Force’s plans have drawn the ire of almost all of the country’s governors, who asked Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in a Feb. 29 letter, to reconsider the proposed Air Guard cuts.

Opposition is so strong that the Council of Governors — an organization that includes governors from across the country, as well as DoD leaders — has taken the unusual step of developing an alternative proposal for how the Air Force can make its cuts. The price tag for the proposal, which remains under tight wraps, is being worked out by the Air National Guard staff and Headquarters Air Force staff, Air National Guard head Lt. Gen. Harry “Bud” Wyatt said on Capitol Hill March 7.

The Council of Governors, which includes nine state leaders, was created to give the states access and a voice with the Defense Department, Vavala said. Obviously, the Air Force did not include them in their deliberations, he said.

“Right now, there is active negotiation between the National Governors Association and the Department of the Air Force on this plan to take the Guard down,” Vavala said. “We’re hoping to see some movement.”

The C-27J is one piece of this larger picture, he said.

“It’s not rocket science to know that Ohio is upset about the loss of the C-27 and actually, as a taxpayer, I’m offended by it too,” Vavala said.

The Ohio Guard operates the C-27J in Afghanistan. It is the only unit that has used the plane in combat.

“Here, we’ve got a brand new airframe that’s already proven its ability to fly that last tactical mile and we’re going to send it to the boneyard. Talk about flawed logic, that’s got to be paramount,” Vavala said.

Air Force officials have said the decision to cancel C-27J was driven by a shift in strategy and dropping budgets, adding that they can meet mission requirements with their existing fleet of C-130 and C-17 transports.

But C-27J supporters say the smal-ler planes are uniquely capable of reaching units in austere locations.

A 37-page briefing by Ohio Air National Guard Capt. Dave Lohrer contends the Air Force has intentionally inflated the life-cycle costs of the C-27J in documents provided to Congress to help justify the service’s decision to cancel the program. The aircraft is built by L-3 Communications and Italian firm Alenia Aermacchi.

In comparing the twin-engine aircraft to the larger four-engine C-130, the Air Force used worst-case scenarios to boost the C-27J’s lifecycle costs by hundreds of millions of dollars per year, the briefing says.

Air Force leadership, which has spent the past month defending its decision to cancel the C-27J program during congressional hearings, has repeatedly said the service could not afford to fly and maintain the fleet.

“The C-27 life-cycle cost over 25 years is $308 million an aircraft,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told the House Armed Services Committee on Feb. 28, using the number Lohrer questions in his briefing. “For the C-130J, it’s $213 million per aircraft. For the C-130H, it’s $185 million per aircraft.”

The briefing by Lohrer states that the Air Force inflated the number of crew and maintenance personnel needed to operate the C-27J. The briefing contends that fewer airmen are needed when compared with the C-130, which needs a flight engineer and navigator.

The Guard contends the Air Force factored an additional 53 people into its analysis, adding more than $112 million to the life-cycle cost estimate. Air Force officials at the Pentagon were huddling last week to counter Lohrer’s analysis, sources said.

When asked for comment, an Air Force spokeswoman forwarded a statement attributed to Schwartz.

“Working with our Guard and Reserve leaders, we used a balanced approach to adjust our Total Force end strength while maintaining the ability to execute strategic guidance. Our Total Force programmed reductions follow detailed assessments of future conflict scenarios and rotational requirements consistent with the new strategic guidance.”

Guard leaders dispute that, saying that while Air National Guard representatives sit in on high-level Air Force budget meetings, they are outnumbered in voting on plans.

“We don’t feel that we were part of the Air Force’s discussions, and we weren’t able to input the fact that our Air National Guard is the country’s most economical force,” Vavala said. “Why would you want to divest yourselves of a battle-proven force that’s got all of this experience and can do it at a fraction of the cost of the active component?

“Don’t forget, the active services didn’t want National Guard Bureau Chief Gen. Craig McKinley on the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” Vavala said. The Guard won that fight with Congress, which made the Guard leader a member of the advisory group in the latest defense authorization act.

While the case mounts against the Air Force’s cuts to the Air Guard, the service is looking to back up the analysis that supports its plans.

The Wall Street Journal reported March 7 that the Air Force had commissioned a Rand Corp. study that supports its claim that Guard units are not necessarily cheaper than the active-duty Air Force.

Asked about the C-27J briefing, the Air Force forwarded a copy of the Rand study to Defense News.

Staff writer Jill Laster contributed to this report.

buglerbilly

12-03-12, 03:11 PM

UPDATE 2-US Air Force could lose acquisitions control-chief

jueves 8 de marzo de 2012 22:21 CET

* Pentagon to review latest procurement problem

* Top general says embarrassed, looking for cause of issue

* Air Force purchase chief sees no lowering of requirements (Adds comment from Air Force acquisition chief, byline)

By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON, March 8 (Reuters) - The Pentagon could assume control of major Air Force acquisition decisions after paperwork problems prompted the service to abruptly cancel a $355 million contract for 20 planes to be sold to Afghanistan, the top Air Force officer said on Thursday.

"It's possible," Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said when asked if Pentagon acquisition officials could take control of Air Force acquisitions again, as they did after a major procurement scandal in the mid-2000s.

Schwartz told a defense conference hosted by Credit Suisse and defense consultant Jim McAleese that he was embarrassed that the Air Force had found "inadequate" documentation for the contract award to privately held Sierra Nevada and partner Embraer.

Last week he told reporters there would be "hell to pay" if the issue turned out not to be an innocent mistake.

The canceled contract was to fund 20 light attack planes to be produced for Afghanistan as part of a foreign military sale. It was worth up to $1 billion, if all options were exercised.

He said acting Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall would make a recommendation on the oversight issue after reviewing the facts of the Sierra Nevada case, and whether it involved systemic issues or individual error.

The Air Force discovered the paperwork issue while preparing for a lawsuit filed by Sierra Nevada's competitor, Hawker Beechcraft, whose AT-6 plane the Air Force had previously declared "technically insufficient."

Schwartz declined to give further details on an investigation into the matter, citing the ongoing litigation. "We'll certainly identify the root causes of that failure to perform," he said, adding that it would be wrong to "cast dispersion" on the entire Air Force acquisition workforce.

Schwartz said the whole issue was disappointing since the Air Force had spent years trying to improve its acquisition process after a spate of problems in the last decade, including its first attempt to replace its aging KC-135 refueling planes.

The proposed lease deal with Boeing Co was canceled by Congress in 2004 after the former No. 2 Air Force acquisition official, Darleen Druyun, was sentenced to nine months in prison for violating conflict of interest laws.

In that case, Druyun admitted steering the tanker deal and other work to Boeing, where she took a job after her retirement.

Following that scandal, the Pentagon assumed control over major Air Force acquisitions, gradually handing back control over the following years.

The Pentagon in 2008 canceled a $35 billion contract awarded to Northrop Grumman Corp and Europe's EADS after government auditors found problems with the Air Force's handling of the contract. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates returned control of the tanker program to the Air Force in 2009.

Air Force acquisition chief David Van Buren told Reuters at the conference that the first phase of the investigation was expected to wrap up next week, and that senior officials from Kendall's office were already involved as part of that process.

He said he was not aware of any plans to reduce the requirements for the new light attack aircraft - a concern voiced on Wednesday by privately held Sierra Nevada Corp.

Sierra Nevada has urged the Air Force to quickly issue a plan for redoing the Afghan plane competition, arguing that it should review materials already submitted, rather than rewriting the terms of the competition or starting it over again.

Hawker Beechcraft, which had sued in federal claims court to reverse the contract award to Sierra Nevada and Embraer, and Sierra Nevada have said they would bid again for the work.

Hawker insists that its AT-6 plane is the most capable, affordable and sustainable light attack aircraft on the market. Sierra Nevada said the Embraer A-29 Super Tucano is combat-proven and in use by six air forces around the world.

(Reporting By Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by John Wallace, Mark Porter and Tim Dobbyn)

buglerbilly

15-03-12, 05:06 AM

Lockheed begins test flights of final F-22

By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC 3 hours ago

Source:

The last F-22 Raptor to be built for the US Air Force took-off on its inaugural test flight earlier today with a company pilot at the helm, a Lockheed Martin executive says.

"I was just watching the take-off of aircraft 4195, so it's now made its first flight on its way to delivery," says Jeff Babione, Lockheed's F-22 programme manager. "We just had everyone outside the building watching the take-off of the final Raptor."

Lockheed test pilot Bret Luedke-- a veteran aviator who has flown almost every Raptor the company has ever built--is flying the aircraft.

Babione says that company pilots usually fly two sorties to verify that the aircraft is functioning correctly. Super-cruise testing is usually conducted over Tennessee and Alabama, he says. The aircraft is capable of cruising at around Mach 1.8 without afterburners and has a top speed of around Mach 2.2.

"It's a real rigorous shakeout to make sure the aircraft is performing as designed," Babione says.

Following the company test flights, government Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) pilots repeat those two sorties as part of the military's acceptance procedures. The lead DCMA test pilot is Robert "Trigger" Wallace.

Only after the aircraft completes those four test sorties will it receive its stealth coatings, Babione says. The aircraft also has to complete a mandatory government inspection.

Lockheed will formally deliver aircraft 4195 to the USAF on 2 May, but the company will probably finish the work well ahead of time, Babione says.

The aircraft will be picked up from the factory by Lt Col Paul Moga and will then become the new "flagship" for the 525th Fighter Squadron at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska.

Lockheed only has five F-22s left to deliver to the USAF. The air force recently took delivery of tail number 4190, which became the new flagship for the 90th Fighter Squadron-which is also part of the 3rd Wing at Elmendorf.

The aircraft passed its mandatory government inspection with flying colours, but it also has to be inspected once it arrives at its home station. The 4190 landed at Elmendorf "code one"-or with no problems to report-but it has yet to complete inspections. Babione says that he'll know in the next few days if the aircraft will get a "Platinum Star" rating for having "zero defects."

The next aircraft, tail number 4191--which is the last jet built under a 60-aircraft, multi-year purchase--is set to be formally handed over to the USAF on 15 March, Babione says.

While the air force will take formally take ownership of the aircraft by signing a DD-250 form, the service may not fly the jet to its new home at Joint Base Langley-Eustis in Virginia until later, he says.

buglerbilly

18-03-12, 02:21 PM

AF-Guard Aircraft Brawl Continues

March 17, 2012

Military.com|by Michael Hoffman

A top U.S. Air Force official on Friday disputed the conclusions of an Ohio Air Guard captain that have caught the attention of the Pentagon and Congress -- its assertion that the service inflated the lifecycle costs of its C-27J Spartan in order to justify killing the aircraft.

Congress has repeatedly questioned service leaders about the analysis done to justify the cuts made to the Air Guard in the service’s 2013 budget submission. The Air Guard bears the brunt of the cuts made by the Air Force to meet the $54 billion reduction in planned Air Force spending over the next ten years.

The Guard will lose 5,100 of the 9,900 airmen the service plans to draw down. Guard squadrons also will lose the majority of the aircraft the service has chosen to retire, including all the C-27Js and half of the Air Guard’s A-10 fleet.

Ohio Capt. Dave Lohrer’s briefing is the latest by a Guard officer to find its way onto desks in the Pentagon and Capitol Hill. It’s rare that a briefing penned by an officer ranked lower than a colonel would receive so much attention.

Yet Lohrer and Maj. Joe “Buzz” Walter, of the Wisconsin Air Guard, have both popped up on service leaders’ radar. Walter’s “Buzz Brief” made the case against slashing the Guard’s fighter fleet and argued that it’s cheaper to keep fighters in the Guard than active duty.

Lohrer took umbrage with the analysis used by the Air Force to cancel the C-27 in favor of maintaining and upgrading the C-130 fleet. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told Congress the C-27J was a “niche” aircraft his service could no longer afford in this austere budget environment.

Lohrer’s briefing attacks some of the numbers the service has used in its comparison between the C-27 and C-130 such as the 25-year lifecycle costs. Schwartz cited the C-27J 25-year lifecycle cost at $308 million. He said the C-130J similarly cost the Air Force $213 million and the C-130H $185 million.

The Ohio Guardsman argues that the Air Force added 53 more airmen than the C-27J needs to its cost analysis to push the 25-year life-cycle price up an additional $112 million. Lohrer said he found early analysis the Air Force did that dropped the C-27J 25-year lifecycle costs all the way down to $111 million.

Kevin Williams, a retired Air Force colonel who is one of the service’s leading analysts, said Friday he has no idea where Lohrer came up with the $111 million figure.

“It doesn’t exist in any formal authorized signed document. That then becomes the basis of kind of like a math problem when you have the wrong number of the first step of your process and that error ripples through everything else,” said Williams, the deputy director of Air Force Headquarters’ Studies and Analyses, Assessments and Lessons Learned directorate, better known as A9.

Williams also questioned the figure Lohrer used for cost per flying hour. Williams said the service had tabulated each C-27 marginal flying hour to cost $2,700, not $2,100, as Lohrer had written in his briefing.

Williams said Lohrer was wrong to criticize the manning figures the Air Force used in its C-27 life cycle cost analysis because that data came directly from the Air Guard.

Williams told a group of reporters and defense analysts Friday that Lohrer and the Ohio Air Guard should have consulted the Air Force before publishing his briefing.
“We can’t find anyone in A9 who ever heard from anyone in the Guard about wanting to validate or verify the numbers they were using,” Williams said.

Schwartz and Air Force Secretary Michael Donley have repeatedly said that Guard and Reserve leaders were included in the discussions over service cuts. However, a Guard and Reserve leader was noticeably absent from Friday’s roundtable organized by Air Force leaders to explain the service’s analysis for its 2013 budget.

Williams echoed Schwartz and Donley, saying his dispute over Lohrer’s data shouldn’t be read as an argument between the Guard and the active component. However, the tension between the active and reserve components continues to grow.

The adjutants general for all 50 states along with Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Washington D.C. signed a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee in February saying the Air Force’s budget analysis was filled with “flawed processes, assumptions and criteria that produced the Air Force budget request.”

Multiple Guard members said the meeting was held specifically to quiet the uproar caused by Lohrer and Walter’s briefings and to allow the service’s active component to regain the upper hand in the debate over service cuts.

One Guard official, who asked not to be identified because the person was not authorized to speak officially, asked Military.com to draw an obvious conclusion from the Air Force officials at Friday’s briefing.

“How many Guardsmen did the Air Force go out of its way to provide you in that budget briefing?” the Guard official asked. “I bet zero -- and there’s a reason for that.”

© Copyright 2012 Military.com. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

19-03-12, 10:08 PM

USAF: We Didn’t Inflate C-27J Costs

Mar. 19, 2012 - 03:29PM

By MARCUS WEISGERBER and KATE BRANNEN

The U.S. Air Force has said that it will cancel the C-27J program. (U.S. Air Force)

The U.S. Air Force — stung by accusations that it’s inflating the cost of flying the C-27J cargo plane as an excuse to cancel the program — is playing damage control.

The service went on the offensive last week after a captain with the Ohio Air National Guard made the case that the actual cost to fly the Italian-built plane is significantly lower than the Air Force has been claiming.

Meanwhile, the Army and Air Force continue to debate exactly which service should be in charge of such aircraft during combat operations.

The briefing by Guard Capt. Dave Lohrer has gone viral within the defense community, so much so that Lohrer was summoned to Washington last week to brief congressional defense committee staffers on his analysis.

The Air Force maintains the total life-cycle cost of the C-27J — built by Alenia Aermacchi — is $308 million per aircraft. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz used the number as recently as Feb. 28 while addressing congressional lawmakers. Lohrer argues the number is closer to $100 million.

The Air Force has not been able to explain the numbers in Lohrer’s briefing, Kevin Williams, deputy director of the Air Force’s studies and analyses, assessments and lessons learned directorate, said at a March 16 briefing at the Pentagon.

Williams speculated that Lohrer might have been using outdated data that threw off his computations.

“That then becomes the basis for kind of like in a math problem where you have a wrong number on the first step of your process and that error ripples through everything else,” Williams said.

The Air Force argues the quad-engine C-130 can carry more troops and supplies longer distances than the smaller, twin-engine C-27J. The fiscal 2013 budget request, if enacted, would terminate the program. The service is still deciding what to do with its existing C-27s, which could be maintained, transferred to another service or sold to a foreign country.

The Air Force claim is not only counter to Lohrer’s briefing, but also to an analysis by the Pentagon’s Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation (CAPE) group, which shows that over 30 years it would cost the Air Force $270 million to fly one C-27J at 400 hours per year using a reserve component crew. This is compared to $163 million for the C-130H, using the same parameters.

But Lohrer contends that it would cost the Air Force about $105.9 million per C-27J, provided the planes were organized in squadrons of similar size to the C-130s. Under that arrangement, CAPE says it would cost $166 million per C-27J.

Asked how the Air Force and CAPE came up with different estimates, Williams said: “You take the $308 [million] and you can make some changes about life cycle so instead of 25-year, you could compute a 30-year. It’s going to drive it down because it lasts longer.”

Lohrer’s analysis questions the Air Force plan to use an additional 53 people to support the C-27J. But Williams said those additional people were included in Air National Guard documentation.

“There’s an assertion in the report that personnel was somehow inflated by the Air Force. Those personnel numbers were the Guard’s numbers,” Williams said. “We’ve got the source document where the Guard provided them.”

Williams also questioned the flying-hours cost referenced by Lohrer as well as depot cost estimates.

The Air Force “normalized operational cost per flying hour” for the C-27J at $9,000 per hour, Williams said. For the C-130H, the per-hour rate is $10,386; for the C-130J, it is $9,111.

Army, Air Force Negotiations

Meanwhile, the Army and the Air Force continue to negotiate how the Air Force will provide critical airlift support to the Army in a way that is agreeable to both services in the aftermath of the C-27J cancellation. The debate includes designating who’s actually in charge of that aircraft.

The Army says the best way to operate during combat is to give the ground commander tactical control of the Air Force aircraft so that he can quickly task them as needed. To do this most efficiently, the Air Force aircraft and crew would be co-located with the Army unit on the ground.

The Air Force’s preferred way of doing business is to keep tactical control with an Air Force commander, with the Army commander able to assign flying sorties from the general airlift pool.

The latest memorandum of understanding (MoU), signed by both service chiefs Jan. 27, leaves the door open to both options. While the document represents a compromise, many in the Army are questioning the Air Force’s commitment to doing the mission.

Responding to skeptics, Schwartz has repeatedly said the Air Force will perform this mission or “die trying.”

For many, the transfer of the C-27J program from the Army to the Air Force and the resulting angst it has caused among the services is just the latest round in a fight that is as old as the Air Force itself.

A retired Army aviation official compared it the Peanuts cartoon series, saying the Army is Charlie Brown and the Air Force is Lucy. Just when the Army — the kicker — thinks it’s going to get support, the Air Force pulls the football back, he said.

Following the Army’s 2009 withdrawal from the C-27J program and the transfer of the plane’s mission to the Air Force, the two services hashed out a plan for the Air Force to provide time-sensitive direct airlift support to the Army. At the time, the Air Force agreed to give the Army tactical control of the aircraft and decided to try out the concept of employment in Iraq.

There, the Air Force’s 164th Airlift Squadron performed airlift missions, using C-130s, at the direction of the commander of the Army’s 25th Combat Aviation Brigade (CAB).

The Army commander was able to directly task C-130 aircraft and airmen to the missions he deemed critical, relieving Army CH-47 Chinook helicopters, which are more expensive to operate, according to a briefing from the Army’s office for operations, plans and training (G-3/5/7). The CH-47s were then more efficiently used for missions that required vertical airlift.

When the first two C-27Js were deployed to Afghanistan last summer, they were under the tactical control of the commander of the Army’s 159th Combat Aviation Brigade in the southern part of the country. Members of the 179th Air Wing of the Ohio Air National Guard and Army Guard crews from Georgia and Oklahoma flew the planes. Army Guard pilots were trained on the aircraft when the program was still joint.

Because the Army CAB commander had tactical control of the aircraft, he was able to “dynamically re-task” missions, meaning change them at the last minute to address higher-priority needs. According to the Army briefing, 52 percent of planned C-27J sorties in Afghanistan changed within the 96-hour scheduling cycle.

In an early draft of the Jan. 27 MoU, the Army’s tactical control of the Air Force squadron and its aircraft was removed, causing the Army’s G-3/5/7 office to recommend the Army not sign it.

“G-3 non-concurs with the currently proposed MoU as it is written,” the G-3/5/7 briefing says. “Even though the current expeditionary airlift squadron is achieving a measurable level of success [tactical control] to the CAB commander, a change to this command relationship would drastically reduce the flexibility and the habitual relationship that underpins the current success.”

According to an Army aviation official, the first draft of the MoU was rejected by the Army and the Air Force and sent back for revision.

“There was a lot of negotiating to reach a final deal that the Army and Air Force felt comfortable with,” the Army aviation official said. In the end, an agreement was reached that the Army staff supported. So Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno signed it, the official said.

During a Jan. 27 budget briefing at the Pentagon, Odierno said, “We’ve been working this for a few months. It’s important to us that we have direct support to our units out in Afghanistan and wherever we might deploy. It’s a concept actually we tested while I was the commander in Iraq, and I thought it was a very successful test. So I’m comfortable with that. So we’ll mitigate the loss of the C-27. I’m not sure we’ll be able to completely mitigate it, but that will help at least, as we’re deployed, to mitigate that problem.”

The final MoU affirms the benefits of giving the senior Army aviation authority on the ground tactical control of the aircraft and having the Air Force’s expeditionary airlift squadrons co-locate with the Army combat aviation brigade.

However, the document adds that “the combatant commander/ Joint Force Commander may apportion sorties from the general support airlift with [the tactical control] retained by the [Commander of the Air Force] Forces.”

By leaving both options for providing direct support on the table, the services are giving the commander in the field the choice to decide what is best, the Army aviation official said.

For others in the Army, providing both options is cause for concern.

Several Army officials who reviewed the MoU said it provided the Air Force room not to perform the mission as the Army intended to support it.

One Army aviation official said the Air Force could now meet the terms of the MoU using a C-130 unit located at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan to support an Army CAB flying daily missions in Kandahar, making it difficult to respond to emergencies.

By keeping the planes in the larger pool, the Air Force can task them more efficiently than if they were sitting on a runway waiting for a mission, an Air Force official said.

The debate will only continue as the Army and Air Force review the 2009 concept of employment, with the goal to “incorporate lessons learned from combat experience in providing direct support and [time-sensitive/mission-critical] intra-theater airlift into joint doctrine,” the Jan. 27 MoU says.

buglerbilly

20-03-12, 01:58 PM

Air Force Changes Name of MC-130J

(Source: U.S Air Force; issued March 19, 2012)

HURLBURT FIELD, Fla. --- Officials announced a popular name change for the MC130J here March 9 that honors the Air Commando legacy and capitalizes on the versatility of the aircraft.

"Air Force Special Operation Command MC-130Js will be equipped to fly various missions and will be called Commando II," said Lt. Gen. Eric Fiel, the AFSOC commander, in the memorandum requesting the change. "This name best reflects the multi-mission role of the aircraft and the units that will fly them."

The Commando II flies low-visibility, low-level air refueling missions for special operations helicopters and tilt-rotor aircraft, and infiltration, exfiltration and resupply of special operations forces by airdrop or airland, intruding politically sensitive or hostile territories, according to the official Air Force factsheet.

The aircraft's popular name previously was Combat Shadow II. Alternate names considered included Combat Knife and Combat Arrow. A popular name, according to the joint service Air Force Instruction 16-401(I), "characterize aerospace vehicle missions and aid communications and media references."

The process for requesting the popular name change began in September 2011, said Don Purvis, an AFSOC logistics management specialist. The memorandum from the AFSOC commander was sent to the asset identification flight at Air Force Material Command headquarters. From that point, a review was conducted by several agencies, including the Air Force Judge Advocate General and Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs.

"This is one of the first name changes we approved," said Keven Corbeil, a Defense Department popular name control point in the flight. "I think 'Commando' had historical (significance for AFSOC)."

In addition to reflecting the current missions of AFSOC, the name change honors the legacy of the C-46, the original Commando. According to the AFSOC commander's memorandum, the new name "embodies the broader linage of special operations force aircraft."

The C-46 was used extensively during the Cold War and Korean War by various government agencies, said Herb Mason, the AFSOC historian. It doubled the payload and range of the C-47, which it replaced.

Just like its descendent, the original Commando performed a variety of missions. The C-46 was most famous for its operations in the Far East. The Commando was a workhorse in 'flying the hump' over the Himalayan Mountains, transporting desperately needed supplies from bases in India and Burma to troops in China. A variety of transports had been employed in the effort, but only the C-46 was able to handle the adverse conditions, according to an executive staff summary sheet for the popular name change request.

Commando II replaces the aging special operations forces fleet of 37 MC-130E and P tankers. The first aircraft arrived at Cannon Air Force Base, N.M., Sept. 29, 2011.

-ends-

buglerbilly

20-03-12, 10:45 PM

USAF training bosses underscore need for T-X acquisition

By: Craig Hoyle London

7 hours ago

Source:

Despite a planned three-year slip in the initial operational capability goal for its T-X next-generation trainer, the US Air Force continues to view the Northrop T-38 Talon replacement deal as a major priority.

"The T-38 is a great airplane, but it can't train fifth-generation capability," says Brig Gen Mark Nowland, director plans, programmes and assessment for the USAF's Air Education and Training Command (AETC).

© US Air Force
The handling performance of the F-22 Raptor has exposed the T-38 Talon's shortcomings

To cover the training gap between its aged Talon and the Lockheed Martin F-22 air superiority fighter, the USAF runs a "bridge course" using two-seat Lockheed F-16Ds operated from Luke AFB, Arizona. New pilots are given seven flights in the type totalling 10h, with the work providing instruction in activities such as flying high-g manoeuvres and air-to-air refuelling by day and night.

AETC requirements division chief Gen Ken Griffin describes the current practice of using a 9g-capable aircraft as "overkill", and notes that it also places extra demand on the USAF's already under pressure F-16D fleet. "It's hurting our F-16 community whenever we do that," he says, noting that the annual number of students to use the type is about to rise from eight to 20.

The AETC's T-38s are an average of 44 years old, and under current plans the type is due to fly on until 2026. Previous studies, which looked at extending this as far as 2041, showed major cost increases and underlined the need for a new system, command officials say. However, as part of the US Department of Defense's budget request for fiscal year 2013, a target for initial operational capability was delayed from FY2017 to FY2020.

"Senior leaders realise the need for T-X exists now; budget constraints will dictate when," Col Dale VanDusen, T-X system programme manager, told IQPC's Military Flight Training conference in London on 15 March. Conceding that "industry is starved for information", he said the AETC is working to finalise its key performance parameters for a T-38 replacement.

Several contractors are already eyeing the T-X opportunity, which has previously been outlined as totalling about 350 new aircraft, plus associated training equipment. Alenia North America is promoting a T-100 version of its Aermacchi M-346; BAE Systems, L-3 Link Simulation & Training and Northrop Grumman a T129 version of the Hawk 128/T2; and Lockheed Martin/Korea Aerospace Industries the T-50. Boeing is also believed to be quietly working on a new aircraft design intended to meet the USAF's pilot training needs.

"Affordability is going to be a huge measure if this [procurement] happens," Griffin told the conference. This could see the AETC consider innovative proposals, such as the use of contractor-owned aircraft.

buglerbilly

20-03-12, 10:50 PM

USAF can't afford JSTARS replacement

By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC

1 hours ago

Source:

The US Air Force has completed an analysis of alternatives (AOA) for its next generation ground moving target indication (GMTI) radar aircraft fleet, but top service officials say the service can't afford to implement the study's recommendations.

"The reality is there is not enough space to undertake a new start business-class ISR platform," USAF chief of staff Gen Norton Schwartz told the US Senate Armed Services Committee on 20 March. "We simply don't have the resources."

The USAF approved the study in January and forwarded it on to the US Department of Defense's office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) for review. The CAPE has to give its assent before the AOA is formally approved.

While the air force analysis calls for a mix of unmanned Northrop Grumman Block 40 RQ-4B Global Hawks and business jet-based ISR aircraft, Schwartz says the service will have to soldier on without a new manned platform. Instead, he says, the current Northrop E-8 Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) will have to do.

[I]© US Air Force

The USAF has two major priorities that it cannot afford: the GMTI programme and acquiring a new jet trainer to replace its aged Northrop T-38 Talons.

buglerbilly

20-03-12, 10:53 PM

Industry approached for USAF F-16 radar deal

By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC

36 minutes ago

Source:

The US Air Force has released a pre-solicitation notice for new radars for a portion of its Lockheed Martin F-16 fleet.

"The intent of this pre-solicitation notice is to inform interested parties, including the vendor community, about potential opportunities related to the [radar modernisation programme]," the notice reads. "Additionally, the USAF's intent is to provide interested parties with key information that will assist in planning and preparation."

The USAF is looking for a new active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar to upgrade about 350 later model F-16s as a stop-gap until Lockheed's stealthy F-35 can be built in numbers. Air force leaders say that the service was forced to proceed with the extensive modernisation of the existing fighter fleet due to repeated delays in procuring the new type.

© US Department of Defense

USAF chief of staff Gen Norton Schwartz reaffirmed on 20 March that the service will not buy more new fourth-generation fighters like the F-16 because they would stay in the inventory as long as a new fifth-generation fighter but would be long obsolete by then.

The notice says that the requirements for the new radar will be finalised and approved in the coming weeks. The air force has been studying the problem since last year.

There are two rival AESA systems that the USAF might buy for its Block 40/42 and 50/52 F-16s. One is Northrop Grumman's scalable agile beam radar; the other the Raytheon advanced combat radar. A draft request for proposal for the new radar might be released as soon as June 2012.

Lockheed is also already working on evaluating how to extend the F-16's airframe life.

buglerbilly

20-03-12, 11:01 PM

Senators Tell USAF to Prove C-27 Cost Claims

Mar. 20, 2012 - 04:12PM

By MARCUS WEISGERBER

A U.S. Air Force C-27J Spartan taxis after landing at a remote airfield in Qalat, Afghanistan. (Master Sgt. Jeffrey Allen / U.S. Air Force)

U.S. senators are demanding that the Air Force explain the metrics it used to estimate the lifetime cost of operating the C-27J cargo plane, which the service has proposed canceling in the Pentagon’s 2013 budget proposal.

Democrats and Republicans, primarily from states where Air National Guard units fly or are slated to fly the aircraft, questioned the Air Force’s rationale for scrapping the fleet of 21 purchased aircraft.

Thus far, the Air Force has yet to provide congressional defense committees with the metrics it used to determine that each C-27J would cost $308 million over its lifetime, which the Air Force used in its rationale to terminate the program.

Lawmakers and defense analysts have questioned the lifecycle costs, particularly because three Air Force assessments of these costs vary between $111 million and $308 million per aircraft.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and other members of the panel questioned Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz about the varying C-27J lifecycle cost estimates during a March 20 hearing.

“There’s a big gap there that I don’t think they adequately explained at all here today,” Levin said after the hearing when asked about the $200 million gap in the estimates.

The committee will continue to look at this issue during its markup of the Pentagon’s 2013 budget proposal, he said.

“We’re not going to take any actions until we’ve had a chance to markup the bill,” Levin said.

An Air National Guard unit in Levin’s home state of Michigan is supposed to receive C-27Js.

One Air Force analysis of the Alenia Aermacchi C-27J shows that each plane would cost the service as little as $111 million, but cautions that additional factors could push the estimate above $200 million over a 30-year period.

That estimate is still well below the $308 million figure the service provided to Congress. The number was repeated by Schwartz at a Feb. 28 House Armed Services Committee hearing.

The $111 million lifecycle estimate is listed in a draft cost-benefit analysis of the twin-engine C-27J and the quad-engine Lockheed Martin C-130H. The 2012 Defense Authorization Act required the Air Force to conduct the assessment that gleaned the $111 million figure. Although dated February 2012, the Air Force has not provided the report to Congress. Defense News obtained a copy of the 13-page report on March 19.

The Air Force called that assessment a “draft report” that was prepared by a Pentagon action officer last fall and “pre-dated” for release in February 2012, according to Kevin Williams, deputy director of the Air Force’s studies and analyses, assessments and lessons learned directorate (A-9).

“As it went through the coordination process, it became apparent that the initial number, $111M was incorrect,” Williams wrote in a statement provided by a service spokeswoman. “A more current, updated version of this document is almost fully coordinated and we expect to send it to Congress in the near future.”

Asked about the lower $111 million lifecycle cost estimate during a March 16 briefing at the Pentagon, Williams told reporters and think tank analysts that any reference to that number was “preliminary” and possibly from a “piece of staff work from last fall, where some things were being bounced around.”

“$111 [million] has never been published by anybody in A-9,” he said last week. “It doesn’t exist in any formal, authorized, signed document.”

Still, three separate Air Force reports show a nearly $200 million difference in opinion.

The large discrepancy between the numbers in the three reports have left lawmakers scratching their heads and questioning the reliability of the lifecycle estimates of the C-27J, an aircraft built to shuttle troops and supplies around the battlefield.

“What I’ve seen trickle out of the Air Force over the past six weeks is confusing to say the least,” Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, said during the hearing. “That data has been inadequate, inconsistent. It’s left us all with more questions than answers.”

The Ohio National Guard operates the C-27J and has deployed with the aircraft to Afghanistan.

While the Air Force cites the $308 million figure, an Air Force background paper states one C-27J aircraft will cost $270 million per aircraft. If operated like C-130s, the C-27J could cost as little as $166 million per aircraft.

And yet the newly unveiled draft cost benefit analysis, which the Air Force says was written in the fall, compares the C-27J to the C-130H. The document notes that the $111 million estimate represents “best case” scenarios, when the aircraft is operated like a C-130. The “Air Force Service Cost Position” — which factors in different crew ratios, maintenance, flying hours and basing — could top $200 million.

At the March 20 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Schwartz said the C-27J flying hour cost is much higher because contractors maintain the aircraft. The Air Force maintains the C-130.

“There’s a considerable difference in relative expense there that goes into the flying hour calculation,” Schwartz said.

However, Air National Guard and industry officials say the C-27Js that have been flying in Afghanistan since last year have used only a small fraction of the more than $60 million in spare parts the unit deployed with the aircraft. Only about $200,000 has been used, according to these sources.

Also, a November 2011 Air Mobility Master Plan — developed by Air Mobility Command, the division of the Air Force that oversees cargo and tanker aircraft — states the “C-27J training and sustainment (supply chain and maintenance) strategies were assessed by a business case analysis to provide the best value approach for the suitable solutions between organic and contractor support.”

The Air Force has not publicly released the document, which describes the C-27J as “an efficient tool to deliver smaller loads within the Joint Operations Area.”

The lifecycle cost estimates were first questioned by Ohio National Guard Capt. Dave Lohrer, who conducted his own assessment, which disputed the Air Force’s personnel and maintenance projections. Lohrer briefed congressional staffers on his work last week.

Defense News reported Lohrer’s findings on March 12. Since then, the Air Force has questioned his metrics.

“We got the pros, the experts, who actually said, ‘No, that’s not right,’” Williams said last week.

Still, the Air Force has not provided the metrics it used to develop the $308 million C-27J lifecycle cost estimates.

buglerbilly

22-03-12, 10:58 AM

The Fate of the Unwanted Global Hawk Block 30s

Posted on March 22, 2012 by The Editor

The US Air Force intends to place six of the Global Hawk Block 30 remotely piloted aircraft that it doesn’t want to operate beyond Fiscal 2012 into non-recoverable storage and another 12 into recoverable storage, said Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz on Tuesday.

It’s possible those latter 12 could find new use, either with another domestic organization or with a foreign partner, he told the Senate Armed Services Committee in testimony.

The Air Force has proposed terminating Global Hawk Block 30 surveillance operations in Fiscal 2013 and, instead, keeping its manned U-2 surveillance platforms flying for at least a decade longer. If Congress approves the plan, 18 of the 31 Block 30s in the current programme of record would be in the inventory by then.

Schwartz reiterated the Air Force’s case: The Block 30 is proving to be “not less expensive to operate” than the U-2 and its sensors need “significant improvements” to match the U-2′s capability. Another “key factor” was the joint requirements oversight council’s decision to decrease the “required number of orbits” for high-altitude surveillance—a change that “enabled the U-2 to cover the requirement,” he said. (Donley-Schwartz joint statement)

Source: Air Force Magazine

buglerbilly

24-03-12, 03:22 AM

USAF fields first upgraded F-22 Raptors

By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC

11 hours ago

Source:

The US Air Force has begun to deploy Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptors upgraded with enhanced air-to-ground strike capabilities to the operational fleet, starting with the 3rd Wing at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska.

"The 525th Fighter Squadron was the first Combat Air Forces squadron to receive an 3.1 modified aircraft," says squadron commander Lt Col Paul "Max" Moga. "The capabilities this incremental upgrade brings are a complete game-changer for the F-22, making it even more lethal and survivable in combat."

The unit's flagship, tail number 4115, is the first aircraft to be equipped with the modifications, which add a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) capability, electronic attack, better geo-location capabilities to find enemy radars, and the ability to carry eight 113kg (250lb) GBU-39 small diameter bombs (SDB).

The Increment 3.1 upgrade allows a pilot manually to designate two ground targets at a time using two weapons each, according to Lockheed, enabling an F-22 to hit four separate targets with its eight weapons. By contrast, the USAF's previous Increment 2 configuration enabled each aircraft to strike two fixed targets using its two 454kg Joint Direct Attack Munition satellite-corrected, inertially guided bombs.

[I]© US Air Force

"A four-ship of Increment 3.1 aircraft can successfully find, fix, track, target and engage targets in the most challenging of anti-access environments," Moga says. "Stealth and speed, combined with an advanced electronic attack capability, allow pilots to operate with impunity while achieving their mission objectives."

The Northrop Grumman APG-77 radar's SAR mode creates black and white photo-quality images of the Earth's surface, allowing pilots to pick their own targets, while the new electronic attack capability allows the F-22 to jam enemy radars using the sensor.

A future Increment 3.2 upgrade has been split into smaller packages called A, B and C. The first is scheduled for fielding in 2014, while the second would begin retrofits in 2017. The third has not yet been fully defined, but the USAF is trying to add open-architecture hardware and software.

Further elements of the future upgrade package include adding Raytheon's high off-boresight AIM-9X and AIM-120D Amraam missiles, and the ability to independently retarget up to eight SDBs against eight separate targets. The Raptor will also gain an automatic ground collision avoidance system and electronic protection to defend it from enemy jamming.

buglerbilly

24-03-12, 03:24 AM

Lockheed to pay $15.85 million to settle case involving overcharges

Posted Friday, Mar. 23, 20120 Comments PrintReprints

By Bob Cox

rcox@star-telegram.com

Lockheed Martin will pay $15,850,000 to settle a lawsuit that it overcharged the U.S. government for tools used on military aircraft programs.

The settlement announced today by the Justice Department stems from a 2005 case in which two employees of Tools and Metals Inc., a Fort Worth company, filed a False Claims Act suit against the company for overcharging Lockheed and thus the government.

Justice Department officials investigated and charged Tools and Metals owner Todd Loftis with fraud. He pleaded guilty in December 2005 and was later sentenced to seven years in prison.

The government also decided to pursue the civil False Claims lawsuit against Lockheed for not detecting the overcharges and ultimately passing them on to taxpayers as expenses on military contracts for the F-22 and F-35 fighter jet programs.

In a press release announcing the settlement, the Justice Department said that "Lockheed Martin acted recklessly by failing to adequately oversee TMI's charging practices and by mishandling information revealing these practices."

"It is troubling that a large defense contractor with long-established contractual ties with the United States failed to undertake appropriate measures to ensure the integrity and validity of the costs it submitted to the United States," said Stuart F. Delery, acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Civil Division.

In a statement, Lockheed spokesman Joe Stout said the company "fully cooperated with the investigation, which led to the prosecution and conviction of the TMI president. At no time did we knowingly engage in any inappropriate billing, but in an effort to close the matter in a timely manner we have agreed to a settlement.

"As a result of the investigation, Lockheed Martin has taken steps to ensure that its oversight of the supplier management process remains vigorous and that applicable controls are uniformly applied. We remain committed to upholding the highest standards of ethics in every aspect of our business."

Bob Cox, 817-390-7723

Twitter: @bobcoxict

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/03/23/3830721/lockheed-to-pay-1585-million-to.html#storylink=cpy

buglerbilly

26-03-12, 06:18 AM

AF-Navy collaborate to find answers on hypoxia

Barrie Barber

Posted: 03/25/2012 11:26 PM

WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE — The Air Force and the Navy have combined research into a perplexing problem that may have vexed both services in the skies.

The U.S. Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine and the Naval Medical Research Unit, next door to each other at Wright-Patterson, have linked research for hypoxia — incidents that may have caused a lack of oxygen to reach pilots during some flights in the Air Force’s F-22 Raptor stealth fighter and the Navy’s F-18, military leaders said.

“We had what we believe was a common issue,” said Capt. Rita Simmons, executive officer of the Naval Medical Research Unit. “Nobody knows what the underlying problem is yet.”

Col. Donald L. Noah, deputy commander of the Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine, said hypoxia research is a high priority at the school. “That’s one of the major tests going on right now,” he said.

Noah and Simmons say the two are collaborating more on medical research since both relocated to Wright-Patterson last year to comply with the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure law.

“Having them here just prevents duplication of effort,” Noah said. “Before we start any research, we say to them, ‘Have you ever done this, do you want to do this with us?’”

In the largest construction project in Ohio since World War II, the Air Force’s $239 million aerospace medical school opened at Wright-Patterson last year with 900 military and civilian staff members, and trains more than 5,000 students a year. The 680,000-square-foot complex, part of the 711th Human Performance Wing, relocated from its long-time home at Brooks City-Base in San Antonio, Texas.

The Navy unit, with about 75 staffers, relocated aerospace medical research to the Dayton air base from Pensacola Naval Air Station in Florida.

The Air Force school hired at least 200 people locally and the Navy hired about 40 area residents, officials said.

The Navy brought one-of-a-kind machines that mimic conditions in flight to test human limits.

An Air Force Institute of Technology researcher, for example, will use the Navy’s 12-foot-tall Vertical Linear Accelerator on base to test more effective ways to keep an image stable, such as on a Heads Up Display during vibration in an aircraft, Simmons said.

A Heads Up Display beams flight data, such as speed and altitude, on a windscreen in front of a pilot. Vibration during flight can be a particular problem in helicopters, said Simmons, a physiologist and an aviator.

Air Force and Navy research at the base also has investigated personnel selection traits to pick UAV crews, Simmons said.

Both services plan to build more advanced machines at Wright-Patterson to test human physiology.

The Air Force will construct a $34.4 million centrifuge, the largest in the world, at the School of Aerospace Medicine to replace similar machines at Brooks City-Base, Texas, Holloman Air Force Base, N.M., and at Wright-Patterson, according to base spokesman William Hancock. A centrifuge has a capsule-like device that spins around in a wide circular arc on a giant metal arm to test pilots’ G-force limits.

The Navy will start operations this summer on a $19 million Disorientation Research Device. Tests of the silver spinning chamber, capable of generating up to three times the force of gravity as it moves in three dimensions between two rails, aim to help researchers understand spatial disorientation and motion sickness in humans.

Contact this reporter at (937) 225-2363 or bbarber@DaytonDailyNews.com.

buglerbilly

26-03-12, 11:24 AM

Lawmakers: U.S. Air Force Numbers Lack Credibility

Mar. 25, 2012 - 11:17AM

By MARCUS WEISGERBER

The U.S. Air Force has faced stiff opposition in Congress for decisions to cancel the C-27J Spartan cargo plane. (File photo / U.S. Air Force)

This is NOT going away for You-Saff and his crew..........whether it helps in the end is another matter but the AirForce is still going to look like a two-faced lying bunch of bar-stewards in the end..............:dunno

Three years ago, then-U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that he was recommending Congress approve the termination or truncation of 33 programs.

With total contract values in the hundreds of millions of dollars, the programs collectively touched just about every state, sending lawmakers on both sides of the aisle into a frenzy over the possibility of losing jobs in their districts.

“[I]t was basically a blitzkrieg on the Hill because everybody’s ox was getting gored,” Gates said on March 14 after accepting the Elliot L. Richardson Prize for Excellence in Public Service from the National Acacemy of Public Administration as he reflected on his 2010 budget proposal. “And that prevented [lawmakers] from forming alliances, and ultimately we were successful.”

It’s unclear whether Gates’ strategy for killing or shrinking programs will apply to the Pentagon’s 2013 budget proposal, which the Defense Department sent to Congress in February.

The Air Force, for example, has faced stiff opposition in Congress for decisions to cancel two programs, the C-27J cargo plane and the Block 30 variant of the Global Hawk UAV.

At congressional hearings over the past two months, Republicans and Democrats have argued against both decisions. Moreover, they’ve called into question the Air Force’s analysis and rationales used to justify those decisions.

This could cause what Air Force and other Pentagon leadership have called a “strategy driven” budget proposal to unravel.

Critics of the plan to cancel the Alenia Aermacchi C-27J have questioned the Air Force’s life-cycle spending estimates, or how much it will cost to purchase and operate one aircraft over a 25-year period.

That argument has been raised not only by the Air National Guard, which is slated to lose at least 21 planes, but also by lawmakers and congressional staffers.

Numerous Air Force documents state the aircraft’s life-cycle cost is somewhere between $111 million and $308 million per aircraft, a broad margin that has created skepticism in both chambers of Congress.

“There’s a big gap there that I don’t think they adequately explained at all here today,” Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said after a March 20 hearing with Air Force leaders.

As for the Northrop Grumman Global Hawk, the Pentagon changed its requirements for high-altitude reconnaissance, which favored the venerable U-2 spy plane over the UAV. The Air Force also says problems with the Global Hawk sensor drove its decision to cancel the Block 30 version.

The Air Force still plans to buy other versions of the Global Hawk, but plans to retire 18 Block 30s.

The decision puzzled many because last summer top DoD acquisition officials expressed their support for the program to Congress.

“It’s completely inconsistent with what [these officials] said just a few months earlier, that there was no substitute for the Global Hawk,” said Todd Harrison, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “I think on some of these decisions, at least the way they’ve communicated them publicly, is creating a credibility problem.”

Also complicating matters: The Air Force had to make “not only some of the most politically controversial decisions but more than any other service,” said Mackenzie Eaglen, an analyst with the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

“Congress is sensitive to these Air Force decisions in particular because they don’t just impact programs,” she said. “They affect entire units and bases around the country and therefore livelihood. This means job loss and future base closure.”

Asked about the Global Hawk decision, Eaglen said it is “equally as flimsy and goes out the window depending on which assumptions or tweaks” are made to the requirement.

The Air Force’s “service cost position” is that one C-27J will cost $308 million over its lifetime. This number is the sum of procurement, development, military construction, operations, personnel and spare parts costs over 25 years divided by the number of aircraft, in this case 38.

The $308 million number, Air Force budget officials said, was finalized in May 2011.

“It’s based on actually how the airplane is laid in; four airplanes per base, nine bases, the number of personnel at each location … all of the things that were essentially the plan for the service, to include the Guard, to base, man, employ, operate the C-27J,” an Air Force official said. “Anything beyond that is an excursion that changes the set of assumptions associated with how we plan to operate, employ, base the C-27J.”

But if you change the assumptions, the life-cycle cost estimate could plummet.

Air Force budget and analysis officials have acknowledged that, when based similarly to the C-130H, using Guard or reserve crews, the C-27J life-cycle cost could fall to $166 million per plane. But this lower number comes into play only if the Air Force buys more than its 38-plane program of record and excludes sunk costs, such as development, military construction and depot standup.

The Air Force argues such a comparison of the C-27J and C-130 was not “appropriate” during the budget process because the basing, manpower and employment factors were what the Air Force would have been required to fund for the existing fleet of C-27J aircraft, according to a senior Air Force official.

Because the C-27J — used to shuttle troops and supplies around the battlefield — will be operated only by the Air National Guard and based at numerous locations in small four-plane squadrons, its costs are more than the C-130s, which are typically part of larger squadrons and spread across the active and reserve components, the Air Force officials said.

The Air Force also notes that the Pentagon’s new strategic guidance, which DoD officials say drove their budget decisions, justify the decision for canceling the C-27J program. Because the strategy calls for fewer ground troops and not fighting two land wars simultaneously, demand for intratheater airlift is less. That also led to the Air Force’s decision to retire 65 C-130s. Both aircraft perform the intratheater airlift mission.

“If you didn’t reduce [the C-27J], you would have to reduce more C-130s or some other intratheater airlift asset,” the Air Force official said.

Since the C-27J costs more, the Air Force opted to eliminate all of the aircraft from the fleet before reducing C-130s.

Further confusing lawmakers is that numerous draft Air Force reports state that the C-27J life-cycle cost is $111 million. The number appeared in at least two draft reports to Congress that have yet to be delivered to lawmakers. The Air Force claims the number is not accurate and was dismissed last fall.

“I challenged it against these guys [other service analysts]a little bit because it wasn’t a good number,” the Air Force official said. “It was a draft report that we were having some pretty vigorous discussions inside the Air Force about and eventually ... people got around to it and said: ‘No, that’s not the right number.’”

But the lower number has raised suspicion in Congress and among analysts.

“There must have been some assumptions that you could plug into their model that result in that number,” Harrison said. “What went into that to make that number and how does it differ because maybe those assumptions are realistic.”

What will ultimately happen to these two programs over the coming months is anyone’s guess.

“This is a classic show-me-the-money issue,” said Gordon Adams, who oversaw defense budgets in the Clinton administration. “It gets very dicey if you’ve made a policy decision that you haven’t backed up with a cost analysis.”

Congressional staffers and think-tank analysts say until they are able to replicate the Air Force’s cost estimate modeling, they will remain skeptical.

Lawmakers have stopped short of saying they will introduce legislation to block the Air Force’s decision. Levin said his committee will seek answers as it continues its review of the Pentagon’s budget submission.

“We’re not going to take any actions until we’ve had a chance to mark up the bill,” he said.

buglerbilly

27-03-12, 09:52 PM

JSTARS To Remain Primary USAF Ground Tracker for Now

Mar. 27, 2012 - 04:06PM

By MARCUS WEISGERBER

The U.S. Air Force will continue flying the Northrop Grumman E-8C intelligence plane indefinitely as service leaders have not settled on an alternate way of tracking moving ground targets.

“For the time being, there’s not a clear way ahead and we’ll continue to use” the E-8C, Lt. Gen. Christopher Miller, deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and programs, said at a March 27 Air Force Association-sponsored breakfast in Arlington, Va.

The E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) is the primary aircraft that conducts the ground moving target indicator (GMTI) mission, which is Pentagon-speak for saying tracking a moving target, such as a vehicle or person.

“The GMTI capability is something we need,” Miller said. “There are probably cheaper ways to get through it over the long term, [but] every other way of accomplishing that mission requires investment.”

But the Air Force does not have those investment dollars.

The service originally planned to install a powerful ground tracking radar on the E-10, a Boeing 767-based intelligence plane envisioned to replace the E-8C, RC-135 Rivet Joint and E-3 Sentry, which are all based on the older Boeing 707 airframe.

The E-10 effort was scaled back and canceled last decade, however, the Air Force still plans to install a smaller version of its radar on the Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk.

In 2010, the service launched a study to explore alternate ways of conducting the GMTI mission. That study, called an analysis of alternative (AoA), is being reviewed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office.

“The substance of that AoA indicated that a blend of Global Hawk Block 40 and a business class [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] platform was the least cost, highest performing alternative,” Gen. Norton Schwartz, the Air Force chief of staff, said at a March 20 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

But the Air Force does not have the money to buy a new business jet and Global Hawks, Schwartz said.

“We simply don’t have the resources,” he said.

The Air Force planned to re-engine the E-8C, however, to date it has only purchased engines and spares for one test aircraft, according to a Northrop Grumman spokesman.

Boeing pitched a version of the Navy P-8A, which is based on the commercial 737 jetliner, as an alternative to the E-8C.

buglerbilly

28-03-12, 01:12 PM

A Quarter-Century Later, Stealth Fighter Finally Ready for Combat

(Source: The Danger Room; posted March 27, 2012)

After nearly 20 years of development and $65 billion, the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter entered service with the U.S. Air Force in 2005. But it wasn’t until this month that the first squadron of Lockheed Martin-built F-22s was fully combat-ready with ground-mapping radars and a flexible bomb payload — standard equipment on most Air Force strike jets.

The cost to bring the roughly 150 front-line Raptors up to this normal level of capability: an extra $8 billion, boosting the per-jet cost from $350 million to almost $400 million.

The belated outfitting is symptomatic of the Air Force’s “spiral” approach to warplane development, and a foreboding sign for the Raptor’s successor, the smaller F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Rather than wait until a jet design is fully developed, the Air Force sends early models out into the world as soon as they meet a minimum standard for combat performance. The planes get extra enhancements over time to bring them up to full spec. While this approach ensures the flying branch gets some utility out of its new aircraft as soon as possible, it also obscures the true time and investment needed to fully develop a new warplane.

The F-22 entered service seven years ago with its air-to-air weapons mostly in place, but with only rudimentary bombing systems. Likewise, the roughly $200-million F-35 will possess only a fraction of its expected capabilities when it finally enters service sometime after 2018. That could force the Air Force to hold onto older fighters far longer than it ever expected, in order to buy time for the new jet’s spiral upgrades.

This month’s “Increment 3.1″ update to the F-22 adds a mapping function to the jet’s radar plus more accurate targeting and the ability to carry eight satellite-guided bombs. “A four-ship of Increment 3.1 aircraft can successfully find, fix, track, target and engage targets in the most challenging of anti-access environments,” Lt. Col. Paul Moga told Flight. What he didn’t say is that the Boeing-made F-15E has had similar skills since the 1990s.

Nor is Increment 3.1 the last planned Raptor upgrade. The F-22 isn’t scheduled to get a multi-function data-link (allowing it to swap information with ground stations, ships and other planes) until around 2014. F-15s and F-16s have had these data-links for years. Similarly, the F-22 still can’t fire the latest AIM-9X air-to-air missile, which is standard on older fighters. Though the F-22 possesses higher speed and better stealth than F-15s and F-16s, in other aspects it could be years before the Raptor can match the jets it’s supposed to replace.

-ends-

buglerbilly

28-03-12, 09:24 PM

Cost control worries USAF on new bomber and tanker

By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC

5 hours ago

Source:

The US Air Force's nascent bomber programme and Boeing KC-46 tanker and the US Navy's Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine replacement programme are all critical to maintaining the US strategic nuclear deterrence - but controlling costs is going to be crucial, a top US military official says.

"Controlling cost is going to be a big issue," USAF Gen Robert Kehler, commander of the US Strategic Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on 27 March.

Kehler stresses that the long-range next-generation bomber needs to be designed for both nuclear and conventional strike roles. For most missions the new stealth bomber would fly armed only with conventional weapons, but while it will be designed for a nuclear mission, Kehler says he hopes the aircraft will never have to carry out that role. That is contingent on performing the nuclear deterrent mission correctly, he says.

© Boeing

Kehler also stresses the importance of the KC-46 tanker (above), which are needed to refuel strategic bombers as they carry out any nuclear mission. Tankers are also critical to projecting conventional power around the globe.

"A large part of our ability to project power is based on our tankers," he says. "A modern tanker fleet is irreplaceable."

The KC-46 is currently undergoing its preliminary design review, according to Boeing. The review started on the week of 18 March and should be complete by the week of 23 April, the company says.

The preliminary review is supposed to ensure that Boeing's design meets the USAF's requirements. It will be followed in the third quarter of 2013 by a critical design review, which will determine if the KC-46 is mature enough to enter production.

Boeing is under contract to deliver the first 18 combat-ready KC-46As by August 2017. The current programme calls for a total of 179 to be built, but that would only be the first step on the path to replacing the existing 416 Boeing KC-135 tankers that the USAF operates.

The KC-46 programme is a $4.4 billion fixed-price incentive development contract that limits the government's liability for costs over $4.9 billion. The tanker's estimated development costs are currently around $900 million more than the February 2011 contract award value, but the USAF is liable for only about $500 million of this total. The remaining $400 million is Boeing's responsibility.

A US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released on 26 March says the USAF and Boeing flight test programme is too ambitious, and that the tanker is at risk of being delayed due to concurrency. The GAO's statement mirrors an earlier conclusion by the office of J Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation.

However, in a letter included with the GAO report, USAF KC-46 programme manager Maj Gen Christopher Bogdan disputes the agency's assessments.

The report "overstates the actual level and impact of schedule concurrency between development, testing and production activity," he says.

Bogdan adds that the programme is event-based, and that if problems are found Boeing is obligated to not only fix future production aircraft, but also retrofit tankers previously delivered at no extra cost to the government.

buglerbilly

28-03-12, 09:27 PM

USAF to reallocate funds from axed CVLSP contest

By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC

4 hours ago

Source:

The US Air Force will return most of the money Congress appropriated for its axed Common Vertical Lift Support Platform (CVLSP) requirement to other operational needs, a senior service official said on 27 March.

"The $53 million would be ether rescinded or returned to the air force for other operational requirements," Maj Gen Robert Kane, the USAF's director of global reach programmes, told Congress.

The air force does not plan on spending the $53 million to upgrade 22 surplus US Marine Corps Bell UH-1Ns that would be transferred to the service. It has yet to decide whether it will fly, store, or simply strip those machines for spare parts when it receives them in 2012 and 2014, Kane says.

The USAF is exploring alternatives to buying a new helicopter to fill the CVLSP role, which includes boosting security at missile sites and new ways to transport VIPs in Washington DC.

Some of the money might be used to upgrade the existing UH-1Ns that are being used for nuclear security and dignitary transport missions, he says. Those aircraft might receive crashworthy seats, cockpits that are compatible with night-vision goggles and other modifications.

© US Air Force

Additionally, the USAF might consider leasing an aircraft rather than buying one, Kane says. But the service has not done so thus far.

Meanwhile, only 93 of the remaining fleet of 99 Sikorsky HH-60G search and rescue helicopters are flyable. They are soldiering on despite major cracks in 66 of the airframes. The aircraft have a mission capable rate of 60%, but that is expected to fall to 50% by 2015, Kane says.

© US Air Force

The USAF originally had 112 HH-60Gs, but has lost a large number of the aircraft over the years. It is modifying its remaining examples to keep them viable in the short term until it can recapitalise the fleet. The service is also investing in an operational loss replacement programme to buy Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawks via the US Army.

But the full replacement programme, called the combat rescue helicopter, is still under way, Kane says. The USAF issued a new draft request for proposal on 16 March, with a final version to follow in May. Initial operational capability should happen in 2018 if the USAF can stick to its new plan.

Additionally, officials from the US Army, USMC, US Navy and USAF reaffirmed their support for a future joint vertical lift aircraft that would push the limits of rotorcraft technology. The army hopes to field such a machine in the 2030s, starting with medium-size utility and attack variants, Maj Gen William Crosby told Congress.

buglerbilly

30-03-12, 05:18 AM

Study: AF lacks stealth aircraft to fight China

By Jeff Schogol - Staff writer, AirForce News

Posted : Wednesday Mar 28, 2012 15:29:54 EDT

Bobbi Zapka / Air Force
A B-2 flies to the North Pole last Oct. 27 on a test mission from Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. A new study says the Air Force lacks adequate stealth aircraft to wage an air campaign against China or North Korea.

The Air Force does not have enough stealth aircraft to wage an effective air campaign against China or North Korea, according to a recent study by the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank in Washington.

The F-22 fighter and B-2 bomber are the only Air Force aircraft that could penetrate China’s sophisticated air defense system, the study found. Those aircraft would also conduct most of the airstrikes against North Korea, given that country’s defenses.

“With only 185 F-22s and 20 B-2s, the United States has an extremely limited number of stealth aircraft that could participate in the first-wave assault,” according to the study.

Moreover, the B-2 has been out of production for more than a decade, so any combat losses could not be replaced, according to the study. And the vastness of the Pacific region would limit how many F-22s could be used at any given time.

“If a wing of seventy-two F-22 fighters was based at a distance of 1,500 nautical miles from the combat zone — roughly the distance between Anderson Air Force Base on Guam to the South China Sea — only six aircraft could be kept over the battle area at a given time,” the study says.

Any air campaign would require hitting multiple targets at once, and the average theater campaign has 30,000 targets, according to the study. It is not financially feasible to hit that many targets with expensive stand-off weapons, such as cruise missiles.

“It is important to consider that hundreds of aircraft-dropped GPS-guided bombs, such as Joint Direct Attack Munitions, can be acquired for the cost of one stand-off cruise missile,” the study says.

The study recommends the Obama administration and Congress invest heavily in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, the KC-46 tanker, the next-generation bomber, F-22 modernization and “long-range, low-observable, carrier-based strike platforms.”

In an email response on the study’s conclusions, Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefaniak said, “To deliver the capabilities required by the new strategic guidance and remain within funding constraints, the Air Force reassessed how to most effectively and efficiently posture its forces for the future security environment.

“With the DoD strategic shift to focus on the Asia-Pacific region while continuing its focus on the Middle East and adapting to an evolving strategic posture in Europe, the Air Force is emphasizing the increasing importance of global power projection and is posturing for the future in a way that maintains our ability to be agile, flexible and ready to engage a full range of contingencies and threats.”

Working with the rest of the U.S. military, the Air Force currently has the ability to prevail in a conflict in any of the potential hotspots across the globe, said Mark Gunzinger, who served as a senior advisor to the Air Force for the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review.

Gunzinger, who is also a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for forces transformation and resources, now works at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a think tank in Washington.

Looking to the future, the Air Force and the other services risk losing their advantage because they have too few long-range aircraft and other weapons, such as bombers, carrier-based aircraft and cruise missiles, Gunzinger said.

“We’re on the path toward building too much short-range capability vice the longer range, longer endurance capabilities that we might need in the future — especially when you consider the geographic challenges of the Pacific and the fact that we may not have bases in the Persian Gulf region as available as they’ve been in the past,” he said.

Threat to tankers

Long-range strike would be a key capability in a future conflict with Iran, which is developing cruise and ballistic missiles to attack any U.S. air bases in neighboring countries, preventing U.S. aircraft from being forward deployed, Gunzinger said. That would pose a tough problem for the Air Force.

While the F-22 and F-35 can penetrate air defense systems, they are not a long-range aircraft, meaning they would need to be refueled — and that would be impossible over enemy airspace because the tankers would be shot out of the sky, Gunzinger said.

Meanwhile, the B-52 and B-1 bombers cannot penetrate advanced air defense systems, so that would mean the Air Force’s 20 B-2 bombers would be the only aircraft capable of striking Iran in such a future conflict, he said.

The AEI study brings up the bigger issue of whether the U.S. will ever get into a conflict with China. That’s not a likely scenario, said Mieke Eoyang of Washington-based think tank Third Way.

“As I’ve said to others, your banker doesn’t go to war with you to get the mortgage back,” she said in an email. “They just want you to keep making the payments. At this point, our economies are so intertwined that a war would be devastating to both nations. So you have to ask, are there any US security interests at stake with China that are worth tanking our economy over, not to mention the cost in lives and treasure?”

buglerbilly

30-03-12, 10:14 AM

USAF vows to discover root cause of Raptor's maladies

By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC

10 hours ago

Source:

A US Air Force Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) panel investigating a series of hypoxia-like incidents afflicting pilots flying the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor has not discovered what is causing the problem, but service officials vow they will find the root cause.

"I am convinced there is a root cause," says Maj Gen Charles Lyon, Air Combat Command's (ACC) director of operations. "I want everyone to know--particularly those who operate it and their families--we will not rest until we find that root cause."

The USAF is continuing to test the F-22's life-support systems to try to determine what is still causing these "physiological incidents."

Those efforts started in September 2011 under the auspices of ACC, says retired Gen Greg "Speedy" Martin, who led the SAB study. "Those are ongoing today," he says.

The most recent of these physiological incidents happened on 26 March where a pilot at Joint Base Langley-Eustis in Virginia had to declare an emergency after his pulse-oximeter alerted him that there might be a problem. The small device is part of the new ensemble of safety gear F-22 pilots are now required to fly with to mitigate the potential risk from life-support system anomalies.

The USAF first noticed a pattern of unexplained hypoxia-like physiological incidents in April 2008. The service initially restricted the F-22 fleet to altitudes below 25,000 ft but eventually grounded the jet in May 2011 after a series of some 14 incidents. The USAF lifted the flight-ban last September after taking precautionary measures such as installing activated-charcoal filters, oxygen sensors, and having pilots wear a pulse-oximeter. But despite the "mitigation efforts," there continues to be incidents recorded every month-which have prompted a number of temporary local groundings by individual wing commanders.

"If there is any indication of abnormal oxygen levels, we terminate the flight," Lyon says. A team of medics will greet the pilot upon landing to quickly run tests and make sure that he or she is treated if need be.

Lyon says that there are only incidents on 0.1% of flights and pilots have flown over 10,000 sorties since September. Lyons says the F-22 is now safer to fly than it ever has been before.

Some of the "findings" of the SAB to date include the fact that the Raptor's onboard oxygen generation system (OBOGS) and emergency oxygen system were not classified as safety critical items, according to a document released by the USAF. Additionally, there is no backup system that automatically supplies oxygen to the pilot if there is a failure of the primary life-support system. Nor was there a requirement to inspect or maintain OBOGS components until recently.

"It was a fly to worn, fly to fail system," Lyon says. "We now have routine inspections."

But perhaps more importantly, there is a general lack of institutional expertise in the field of aerospace physiology and human systems integration. And in the case of the Raptor, the modelling, simulation and integrated hardware testing of the Raptor's life-support system "were insufficient to provide an 'end to end' assessment of the range of conditions likely to be experienced by the F-22," the document reads.

"During that same period of time, we reduced the emphasis and numbers of people associated with aviation physiology research and science," Martin says "That needs to be re-established."

Part of the problem is that the Raptor routinely operates above the normal 50,000 ft operational ceiling of conventional fighters like the F-15 or F-16, Lyon says. How life-support systems behave at those altitudes is not understood very well, he says. This is particularly true of the Raptor's systems which were designed to operate in a chemical and biological warfare environment and thus require the OBOGS to supply a constant pressurized oxygen-mix to the pilot rather than blending it with cabin air.

While Martin says the Raptor's exact ceiling is classified, it is known that USAF regulations restrict the jet to 60,000 ft. Raptor pilots receive a waiver to fly the jet above 50,000 ft while wearing the Combat Edge g-suit-which counts as a partial pressure suit for the USAF's purposes. The restriction is due to the Armstrong Limit, which is found at an altitude of between 62000ft and 63000ft, where the outside air pressure is so low that water will start to boil at 37°C (98.6°F).

While the USAF continues to investigate, the service has a set of recommendations from the SAB which it is implementing. These include developing a new backup oxygen supply, developing new standards for breathable cockpit air supply, adding an automatic ground collision avoidance system to the jet, and installing a new handle for the troublesome emergency oxygen supply.

70% of the jets have the new handle-which cost $47 a piece-and the rest will have it in a couple of weeks, Lyon says.

There are a host of other recommendations that the USAF is implementing. The service is establishing quarterly review to monitor how well the USAF is doing in implementing the SAB recommendations.

buglerbilly

02-04-12, 12:30 PM

IN FOCUS: Latest F-22 upgrade brings ability to jam enemy radars

By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC

28 minutes ago

Source:

This year, the US Air Force started fielding the Increment 3.1 upgrade to its Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor fleet.

The modifications add a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) capability to the fighter's Northrop Grumman APG-77 radar, plus electronic attack, better geo-location capabilities to find enemy radars and the ability to carry eight 113kg (250lb) small diameter bombs (SDBs), for use in pairs against four ground targets.

Introduction of an SAR mode will assist during the manual targeting process, which is an improvement over the previous Increment 2 configuration's use of two 454kg Joint Direct Attack Munition satellite-corrected, inertially guided bombs against individual targets.

© Lockheed Martin

The USAF has not been forthcoming about the precise details of the Raptor's new electronic attack mode.

Starting in 2014, the USAF will also field a series of Increment 3.2 upgrades split across three packages. Aircraft would start to enter the second of these in 2017, and while the third package has yet to be fully defined, the service wants to add open-architecture hardware and software during this phase.

Key elements of the Increment 3.2 enhancements include the addition of Raytheon's high off-boresight AIM-9X and AIM-120D Amraam missiles, and the ability to retarget independently up to eight SDBs against eight separate targets. Automatic ground collision avoidance and anti-jamming systems will also be incorporated.

However, the F-22 will not receive a helmet-mounted cueing system or the new multifunction advanced data-link (MADL).

MISSING PARTS

USAF sources say the lack of a helmet-mounted display will only preclude pilots from exploiting the outer edges of the AIM-9X's envelope, but that the new weapon will still greatly increase the Raptor's potency.

The lack of a new data-link, however, is a problem, as the MADL would have allowed the Raptor to trade data with the Lockheed F-35 Lightning II and Northrop Grumman B-2 bomber. While the F-22 does have the ability to communicate over secure voice with other aircraft, it can only share data with other Raptors via its intra-flight data-link and a handful of specially equipped Northrop RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned air vehicles.

When the USAF was first learning to coordinate F-22s with "fourth-generation" jets, the Raptor's inability to transmit over the Link 16 data-link was a vexing problem. But pilots learned to "de-conflict" through timing and more detailed briefings.

The USAF hopes to eventually develop a new data link that would solve the problem, Lt Gen Herbert Carlisle, the service's deputy chief of operations, plans and requirements said in February.

There are also some planned combat identification algorithms that will be added to the APG-77 radar. Additionally, the F-22 programme has begun to retrofit improved stealth materials from the F-35. The new materials improve the durability of the aircraft's coating, but do not impact the Raptor's radar cross-section.

buglerbilly

02-04-12, 02:01 PM

C-27 Program Cut Explained, Budget Aligned With Strategy

(Source: US Air Force; issued March 30, 2012)

WASHINGTON --- The Air Force deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and programs discussed the reasoning behind the C-27J Spartan program cut from the fiscal 2013 budget request during the Air Force Association's monthly breakfast seminar here March 27.

"It's not because it isn't a good aircraft, and it's not because it wasn't a good idea $487 billion (million-Ed.) ago," said Lt. Gen. Christopher Miller. "We are going to make more disciplined use of defense dollars."

From a financial and programmatic perspective, anytime an entire weapons system, its logistic support and training infrastructure can be eliminated without harming the capabilities of the force, the benefits are greater, Miller said.

"The savings that you reap from that kind of action is far greater than if you just retired a fractional number of the fleet," he said.

Coupling the facts that the Air Force was under financial pressure and the life-cycle costs of the C-27 exceeded that of the C-130 Hercules because of how it was to be based, there wasn't any other realistic option, especially given that the Air Force can accomplish its goals with the C-130, according to Miller. "We remain committed to supporting our Army teammates."

"(Cutting the C-27 program) was a decision we did not like to make, but that we had to make," he said. "Its capacity, over and above the rest of the fleet, simply was not needed under the demands of the new strategy. What that allowed us to do was keep some very important things on track."

He said the savings allowed the Air Force to maintain focus on systems like the KC-46A Tanker and the F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter as well as other, not-so-visible systems like global positioning satellites, space programs, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems.

Classic double-talk, what is said here is nonsensical............WHAT exactly does "focus" mean here? We need the coin to pay for program over-runs?

"We want to make decisions in the near term that support the strategic vision in the long term," Miller said. "As we start to come out of Afghanistan, and have come out of Iraq, we are facing a new resource era."

He said the Air Force is looking at a type of full-spectrum rebalancing within the force.

"We're trying to bring all these things we've done for a long time into a sustainable balance for the future," the general said. "Space and cyber are clearly more predominant in all aspects of military operations than they used to be."

The Air Force is going to put even more emphasis on making sure the active, Guard and Reserve components are balanced appropriately and making sure Airmen and assets are fully ready all the time, he said.

"Maintaining a smaller force that is anything less than ready is a bad idea," said Miller.

-ends-

buglerbilly

03-04-12, 10:38 PM

USAF’s HH-60 Rescue Choppers Will Only Be 50 Percent Mission Ready By 2015

Yup, the Air Force’s fleet of 93 HH-60 Pave Hawk combat search and rescue helicopters will only be ready to fly missions 50 percent of the time by 2015, according to service brass.

Only 93 of the remaining fleet of 99 Sikorsky HH-60G search and rescue helicopters are flyable. They are soldiering on despite major cracks in 66 of the airframes. The aircraft have a mission capable rate of 60%, but that is expected to fall to 50% by 2015.

That’s from Flight Global citing Air Force Maj. Gen. Robert Kane’s testimony before lawmakers this week.

The service has been trying to replace the heavily-used Pave Hawk fleet for years (CSAR-X, anyone?). We’ll see what happens with its latest effort, dubbed the combat rescue helicopter, given the huge budget cuts that are on the way.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/#ixzz1r12T0Fsu
Defense.org

buglerbilly

10-04-12, 02:21 PM

Air Force’s New Tactic: ‘Blanketing a City’ With Energy Bars

By David Axe Email Author April 10, 2012 | 6:30 am

Uploaded by AFBlueTube on Jan 19, 2010

The crew of a U.S. Air Force C-17 Globemaster III delivers tons of water and food to earthquake survivors in Haiti Jan 18, 2010. International aid has been pouring into the country that was devastated by the 7.4 magnitude earthquake that struck Jan 12, 2010. The water and food are packaged in the padded boxes you see leaving the aircraft, that cushion & protect the supplies from breaking when they hit the ground. Once on the ground, the team opens the boxes & provides the water and food to the survivors. (Video by U. S. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Justin Suddeth)

In 1999, the Australian military launched a major peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention into the tiny Southeast Asian country of East Timor, following Timor’s brutal conflict with Indonesia. Australian aircrews began flying emergency relief missions, air-dropping loads of food, water and other supplies to the impoverished Timorese.

But the mission of hope turned tragic when a free-falling box of supplies, weighing probably hundreds or even thousands of pounds and falling at the rate of a speeding car, crushed a Timorese boy, causing him to lose a leg.

It was a humanitarian’s worst nightmare, and the origin of a new tactic for air-delivering vital supplies to disaster zones. Today, the U.S. Air Force’s Air Mobility Command, the world’s biggest airlift force, is putting the finishing touches on a method of veritably carpet-bombing afflicted populations with food and water.

Instead of the heavy, potentially dangerous drops of the past, AMC is planning to scatter thousands of small, leaf-like foam packages, each containing a drink of water or six ounces of emergency rations. Call it: energy bars from heaven.

For airdrops over Afghanistan since 2001, the airlift command has been using the same “Tri-wall Aerial Delivery System” the Australians used in Timor. (Depicted in video.) TRIADS is, in essence, a cardboard refrigerator box packed with up to 2,000 pounds of supplies. The box doesn’t use a parachute: It free-falls at 50 miles per hour and crumples on impact, spilling the goodies like a busted piñata.

TRIADS works great over Afghanistan, Maj. Tom Lankford, AMC’s tactics chief, tells Danger Room. “In Afghanistan there are a lot of places without a lot of people around.” Aircrews don’t have to worry about a Timor-style accident.

But in earthquake-ravaged Haiti two years ago, the Air Force had a hard time finding any drop-zones that weren’t teeming with people. So Lankford’s people went back to the drawing board. Working in conjunction with the Army (which actually owns most of the air-drop gear the Air Force uses) they did away with the refrigerator-size box, replacing it with individual, football-size foam packages. Inside each package is a single serving of water or an energy bar. AMC did some quick calculations to determine how many of the so-called “Humanitarian Operations Packaged Essentials” could fit into a C-17 cargo plane. The answer: 125,000 — enough to “literally blanket a city,” Lankford says.

To make sure the HOPE packages don’t hurt anybody, AMC engineers built what Lankford jokingly calls the “HOPE cannon,” a device that fires the foam packages at a mannequin at speeds up to 20 miles per hour. That’s several mph faster than the estimated top speed of HOPE packages as they flutter down to earth like leaves. Based on the tests, Lankford estimates a HOPE package has a 1 percent chance of hurting you — if it hits you. And the injury should be no more than a scratch, he says.

The Air Force wants to start dropping the lifesaving foam treats over disaster zones this year. But there are still some kinks to work out. For now, airlift crews literally tip a box full of HOPE packages out the open ramp of a C-17. Lankford wants a more elegant dispenser system that can be installed inside the airlifter to feed the foam packages into the open air. One possibility, Lankford says, is “some sort of conveyor system.”

buglerbilly

11-04-12, 10:25 PM

Lockheed To Test Fuel-Reduction Techniques on C-130

Apr. 11, 2012 - 03:09PM

By ANDREW CHUTER

LONDON — The U.S. Air Force is trying to identify a spare C-130J Hercules to allow the cargo aircraft’s maker, Lockheed Martin, to flight-test a series of fuel-reduction trials that could cut consumption by up to 7 percent, according to a senior company official.

The U.S. plane maker has carried out wind tunnel testing on various drag-reduction options on the C-130, and is looking to validate those findings in flight, said Jim Grant, vice president for new business at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics.

With spiraling costs putting fuel efficiency high on the military’s agenda, the U.S. Air Force is looking at measures to reduce the huge fuel bill run up by its transport fleet. Lockheed also is doing work on the C-5 Galaxy, another transport plane.

Grant said guide vanes, strakes and winglets were all being looked at as part of a joint initiative with the service to cut fuel consumption across its air transport fleet.

“Wind tunnel tests have told us we have easily a 5 to 7 percent savings on fuel,” he told reporters during a briefing here April 11.

“We want to verify what we have seen in the wind tunnel, test the value of each of these options and see which ones really buy their way onto the aircraft in fuel saving versus cost” of doing the modification, he said.

Grant said the company is not under contract to undertake the modifications for the Air Force, but he expected some of the changes to “start occurring within the next year.”

But first, the company needs an aircraft to test some of its options. The current heavy use of the C-130J fleet makes it challenging to get an aircraft for the 30 days needed to modify and carry out the tests, Grant said.

“Everybody is using their aircraft heavily now,” he said. “It’s a huge challenge; the Js are very busy and it’s difficult to pull an aircraft for any significant length of time.

“The customer will decide what he wants. I’m not sure the winglets will be the most efficient; it could be something else,” Grant added.

With tactical aircraft such as the C-130, micro vanes might be the first change, he said.

Code One, Lockheed’s house magazine, said in March that the micro vanes had been tested on a new Canadian C-130J straight off the production line in Marietta, Ga.

At long-range cruise speeds, drag reduction equated to a savings of about 25 gallons an hour, according to Code One.

By comparison, a wind tunnel test of 5-foot-high winglets reduced fuel consumption on a typical 2,500-nautical-mile mission by about 21 gallons an hour.

The analysis is being done on the latest J model of the C-130, but the aerodynamic changes are applicable to other Hercules models as well.

Britain’s Rolls-Royce is working on an upgrade to the T56 turboprop engine used on older versions of the Hercules, with the aim of cutting fuel consumption or producing more power.

buglerbilly

12-04-12, 11:26 AM

‘Operation Chimichanga’ Tests Pentagon’s Stealth Strike Force

By David Axe and Noah Shachtman Email Author April 11, 2012 | 8:43 am

B-1s refuel during a recent test sortie. Photo: Air Force

The first sign of the coming U.S. air raid was when the enemy radar and air-defense missile sites began exploding. The strikers were Air Force F-22 Raptor stealth fighters, flying unseen and faster than the speed of sound, 50,000 feet over the battlefield. Having emptied their weapons bays of super-accurate, 250-pound Small Diameter Bombs, the Raptors turned to engage enemy jet fighters rising in defense of their battered allies on the ground.

That’s when all hell broke loose. As the Raptors smashed the enemy jets with Amraam and Sidewinder missiles, nimble Air Force F-16s swooped in to reinforce the F-22s, launching their own air-to-air missiles and firing guns to add to the aerial carnage.

With enemy defenses collapsing, B-1 bombers struck. Several of the 150-ton, swing-wing warplanes, having flown 10 hours from their base in South Dakota, launched radar-evading Jassm cruise missiles that slammed into ground targets, pulverizing them with their 2,000-pound warheads. Its weapons expended, the strike force streaked away. Behind it, the enemy’s planes and ground forces lay in smoking ruin.

The devastating air strike on April 4 involved real warplanes launching a mix of real and computer-simulated weapons at mock targets scattered across the U.S. military’s vast Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex near Fort Yukon, a tiny former fur trading post, population 583. “Operation Chimichanga,” as the exercise was reportedly designated, was the first-ever test of a new Air Force long-range strike team combining upgraded Lockheed Martin F-22s and Boeing B-1s carrying the latest air-launched munitions, along with old-school fighters, tankers and radar planes for support.

Officially, Operation Chimichanga was meant “to validate the long-range strike capability of the B-1s as well as the F-22s’ and F-16s’ ability to escort them into an anti-access target area,” according to Lt. Col. Joseph Kunkel, commander of the Alaska-based Raptor squadron with the latest “Increment 3.1″ upgrade.

Unofficially, the exercise was a proof-of-concept for the Air Force’s evolving tactics for battling China over the vast western Pacific. Of course, the Air Force would never say that. In fact, the flying branch has said very little about Operation Chimichanga, aside from an official news story containing few details. We know when and where the exercise took place, which planes were involved and, to a lesser extent, which munitions. The scenario described above is largely a recreation based on these known facts plus years of aerospace reporting and a general understanding of the Air Force’s methods and aims.

While the Alaska test apparently proved that the stealthy strike team can defeat determined enemy forces at long range, it also underscored America’s vulnerability against the fast-growing Chinese military. It takes the latest stealth fighters and upgraded bombers flying as a team to beat China, and thanks to developmental problems America has only so many of those airplanes to work with.

Airmen prepare a B-1 for a mission over Libya. Photo: Air Force

Pacific Pivot

For more than a decade the Air Force has been quietly preparing for the unthinkable: a full-scale war with China. For such a conflict to occur, multiple layers of diplomatic and economic safeguards would have to simultaneously fail. In other words, war with China is as unlikely as it is unthinkable. All the same, as China grows more powerful, America boosts its own weaponry to keep pace. “The peace of East Asia has largely been kept by the very conspicuous presence of American military power,” Jonathan Levine notes in The National Interest.

America’s Pacific arsenal — 100,000 forward-deployed troops, 100 warships and thousands of warplanes — suffered somewhat from the resource-intensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But with those wars ended or ending, Washington has pivoted back towards the western Pacific. U.S. Pacific Command is getting a greater share of American submarines, aircraft carriers, Littoral Combat Ships, stealth fighters and drones.

The Air Force’s roughly 150 B-1, B-2 and B-52 bombers will play a bigger role, too. Originally designed to drop nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union, in recent years all three models have been upgraded with new sensors, better communications and conventional weaponry including smart bombs, bunker-busters and cruise missiles.

Bomber tactics have gotten a refresh, too. In 2003, the Air Force began posting bomber squadrons to Guam on a rotating basis, putting them within quick flying range of China. A year later, Danger Room pal Lt. Gen. Dave Deptula, now retired, helped organize the first-ever test sinking of a warship by a Boeing B-52 carrying smart bombs.

The 60 B-1s, normally based in Texas and South Dakota, have spent much of the last decade flying close air support over Iraq and Afghanistan. The ebbing of the those air campaigns freed up the 150-foot-long planes for other assignments. Last year two B-1s flew an epic, 24-hour mission from South Dakota to Libya, striking no fewer than 100 ground targets — a feat that required careful coordination and a mountain of paperwork by the different commands involved. Operation Chimichanga a year later was meant to see whether the same methods could work over the Pacific.

In parallel, the Air Force has tweaked the B-1′s equipment specifically for its new Pacific role. Last fall the flying branch added new GBU-54 Laser JDAMs, a version of the classic satellite-guided bomb that has also has laser guidance for last-minute adjustments — the kind you’d need to hit a moving ship. “It’s the first weapon where you can control it after it’s left the jet,” Capt. Alicia Datzman, a B-1 crewmember, tells Danger Room.

But it’s the new Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, built by Lockheed, that could prove the most important in any future war against China. The B-1 is only moderately stealthy. “We’re about the size of an F-16 on radar,” says Col. David Been, commander of the 7th Bomb Wing at Dyess Air Force Base in Texas. “But we’re by no means low-observable.” That means the 1980s-vintage bomber needs to stay outside the range of China’s deadly surface-to-air missiles, such as the HQ-15. The Jassm, which comes in 200-mile-range and 600-mile-range versions, can strike targets from farther away than the HQ-15 can defend. The B-1 can carry 24 of the cruise missiles, more than any other plane.

A pair of B-1B bombers release chaff and flares. Photo: Air Force

One-Two Punch

China is steadily improving its air defenses. To make sure the bombers can get through, the Air Force plans to send fully-stealthy warplanes in first. The Northrop Grumman B-2 stealth bomber is the ideal trailblazer, as it proved over Libya when three B-2s knocked out the bulk of Libya’s radars, missiles and airfields in a single pass. But the Air Force possesses just 20 B-2s, only a handful of which are combat-ready at any moment.

So the F-22 fills in. With the latest Increment 3.1 upgrade, the F-22s can lob 250-pound, Boeing-built Small Diameter Bombs at least 60 miles with pinpoint accuracy, a capability apparently tested out during Operation Chimichanga. The Raptor-bomb combo “was critical to follow-on forces completing their missions,” F-22 commander Kunkel said.

But even the F-22 is in short supply. So far only one Alaska-based squadron has the Increment 3.1 Raptors. When the upgrade is complete, around 150 F-22s will be able to carry the tiny, precise bomb — still a relatively small force for taking on potentially thousands of Chinese radars, missiles and jet fighters. The smaller F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is supposed to give the Air Force stealth capability in large numbers, but the F-35 is tens of billions of dollars over-budget and five years behind schedule.

In 2006, the Air Force launched an effort to build as many as 100 new stealth bombers. But the Next Generation Bomber experienced its own out-of-control cost growth. Then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates canceled the new bomber in 2009 and told the Air Force to start from scratch.

With the approval of current Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, last year the flying branch initiated development of the Long-Range Strike Bomber, a slightly down-graded version of the Next-Generation Bomber. Allegedly, it will cost just $550 million per copy — a fraction what the B-2 cost. (Although many military observers believe the new bomber’s price tag will grow significantly.) If and when the new bomber enters service sometime in the 2020s, it could significantly shift the Pacific balance of power.

In the meantime, teamwork is the key. The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines are working on AirSea Battle, a new playbook for combining their forces in Pacific combat. In that spirit, B-1s and other upgraded bombers will fly and fight alongside the latest F-22s and other warplanes, relying on new weapons and coordinated tactics to make up for a paucity of stealth. If Operation Chimichanga is any indication, these methods are deadly effective.

Let’s just hope we never need to use them.

buglerbilly

13-04-12, 12:41 PM

Live Virtual Constructive technology set to revolutionize air combat training

By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC

12 hours ago

Source:

The US Air Force and Lockheed Martin are getting ready to demonstrate the first operational use of live virtual constructive (LVC) training technology on 26 April at Luke Air Force Base (AFB), Arizona.

The technology has the potential to revolutionize the way air forces train-particularly for aviators who will fly 5th generation machines like Lockheed's F-22 Raptor and F-35.

While currently USAF, US Navy and US Marine Corps pilots fly their aircraft against other friendly jets replicating enemy "bandits" such as the Russian Sukhoi Su-30 Flanker, often there are not enough adversaries for pilots to train against.

©USAF

"There are not enough airborne resources that we can go fly and fight against that would give us the maximum training benefit for all the JP-8 [jet fuel] that we're burning," says Robert McCutchen, Lockheed's F-16 training expert at the Luke AFB Networked Training Centre. "To be able to go out and fly a four-ship against two adversaries doesn't really maximize your ability to employ that airplane as a four-ship."

LVC would offer that four-ship of real F-16 fighters the ability to fight against eight to 12 virtual bandits. Those computer-generated adversaries would show up on the F-16's sensors just like real enemy fighters and would have realistic flight characteristics, McCutchen says.

The adversaries would be managed by instructors who would control those virtual enemies and manage their tactics. They would also make sure the virtual adversaries do not get into visual range.

"We'll have individuals on the ground who will be manipulating and managing the scenario and making sure these computer-generated little guys stay outside the visual range of the live fighters," says the retired 5000+ hour F-16 weapons school graduate.

The addition of so many virtual enemy forces in the air and on the ground greatly increases the complexity of training missions.

"We'll be able to robust their scenarios," McCutchen says.

The limitation, of course, is that LVC cannot simulate a visual-range opponent. The targets are virtual, but it should still be a useful training tool.

This is especially true for the F-22, where Raptor units have a difficult time coaxing dissimilar fighter units to fly against them due to the lopsided nature of the training. The F-35, McCutchen says, will face similar problems of not having enough high-performance adversaries to train against.

"The F-35 is going to have the same problem and the LVC is going to be a way that the air force to going to move forward and make the technology mature through the F-16 so that we can help future F-35 pilots," he says.

In February, Lt Gen Herbert "Hawk" Carlisle, the USAF's deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and requirements said that it is almost impossible to build a realistic, challenging training scenario for the F-22 and F-35 during real-world exercises. There is no way to replicate the kinds of electronic warfare threats or the sheer scale of enemy opposition that those aircraft might face during a real war except - to certain extent - during some select large-force exercises like Red Flag at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada.

"To do those routinely is a challenge," Carlisle said. "So you have to do a lot of that by virtual constructive capability."

Given that there would be more training value per LVC sortie, the USAF would also save money on fuel and airframe life.

But first, LVC technology will have to demonstrate its capabilities operationally before the USAF allows its fighter pilots to use it. Luke AFB's F-16 squadrons will be the first to use LVC training if Air Education and Training Command gives the go-ahead.

"On the 26th [of April] we've got government folks from AETC down at Randolph [AFB, Texas] that are going to come visit," McCutchen says. "We will do a demonstration with live virtual constructives."

Once AETC gives its approval, the USAF will start the process of setting up training scenarios using the new technology. There is a lot of testing and integration work that remains to be done, McCutchen says. "We're going to go through an evaluation period to figure out the smartest way to use this new equipment," he says.

That will probably take up most of the year, but F-16 instructor pilots will probably start seeing some of the capabilities of the system during their continuation training sorties. But eventually, student pilots will start seeing hordes of virtual enemy fighters which they can slay to their heart's content.

buglerbilly

13-04-12, 02:03 PM

Galaxy Rising: with C-5M A 'Super' Culture, Capability Change Are Taking Place

(Source: US Air Mobility Command; issued April 12, 2012)

SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, Ill. --- The culture of the Air Force C-5 community is changing...and it's changing in a "super" way.

As the Air Force transitions to the C-5M Super Galaxy, the upgraded airframe has quickly become an integral part of the airlift mission. It has set dozens of airlift world records and spanned the globe completing historic missions. In October 2011, the C-5M was also a force in the C-5 "surge" where for a week 18 active duty and 23 Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Command crews and 41 total force C-5 Galaxy aircraft flew cargo in support of combatant commanders across the globe -- also an Air Force first.

The C-5 has long been known as the "Air Force's largest airlifter." In the future, Air Mobility Command officials say the goal is to have all C-5s become C-5Ms that would further strengthen the airframe's worldwide airlift capabilities.

The Air Force began an aggressive program to modernize all remaining C-5Bs and C-5Cs and many of the C-5As in its inventory when the C-5 Avionics Modernization Program, or AMP, was instituted in 1998. This effort included upgraded avionics, improved communications, new flat panel displays, improved navigation and safety equipment, and a new autopilot system. The first flight of the first AMP-modified C-5 occurred on Dec. 21, 2002.

The second part of the C-5 modernization plan is the Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program, or RERP, which includes new General Electric CF6-80C2 engines, pylons and auxiliary power units, with upgrades to the aircraft skin and frame, landing gear, cockpit and pressurization system. With both AMP and RERP upgrades, the C-5M was born. Dover AFB received the Air Force's first production C-5M in November 2010.

The Air Force plans to upgrade 52 Galaxies to "super" status by the end of 2016, said Lt. Col. Bob Shelton, A3 Strategy and Integration Officer with Headquarters AMC's Directorate of Operations.

"The C-5M significantly increases strategic airlift capability. We'll see tremendous improvement in reliability, direct-delivery capability and fuel efficiency. In turn, all of these will help reduce the demand on tanker platforms and the number of air refueling missions required," said Shelton, who has over 600 hours experience flying C-5s. "As our new strategic guidance looks towards operations in the Pacific, the improved capabilities of the 'M' will be especially beneficial to strategic airlift in the region and for overcoming the 'tyranny of distance.'"

The C-5M is also an airframe that aircrews and maintainers are talking about and eager to fly on.

"The C-5M is the future," said Staff Sgt. Steven Dow, a flying crew chief with the 436th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron at Dover AFB, Del. "I love the C-5 -- always have in any variant -- but the C-5M is spectacular."

Dow, who's been a C-5 maintainer for more than 10 years, was among 14 aircrew members who took a C-5M on the Air Force's first direct delivery airlift mission through the Arctic Circle from the United States to Afghanistan in 2011. On the 14-hour-plus flight to Afghanistan, the C-5M carried cargo for the Operation Enduring Freedom mission and "proved a strategic direct delivery concept."

On its way back, the same C-5M was also refilled with cargo from Kyrgyzstan, Southwest Asia and Western Europe that needed to be returned to the U.S. -- making efficient use of nearly all the 270,000 pounds of cargo capacity in the plane. All of the thousands of miles back to Dover AFB, the plane performed as well as expected by the crew, and added to the upgraded airframe's reputation as a "solid performer."

"The C-5M is a great mobility weapons system," Dow said. "During our mission to Afghanistan the plane flew all the way and had zero discrepancies or write-ups."

Lt. Col. Scott Erickson, a C-5 pilot from the Air Force Reserve's 709th Airlift Squadron at Dover, discussed the C-5M's capabilities and capacity.

"Having been with the M from the beginning, I'm always proud to show off what it can do," Erickson said. "Thanks to the engines, we can now carry more [with the C-5M], carry it farther and use less gas. In overflying places we used to stop for gas, or where we would have required an air refueling, the savings in time, money and maintenance adds to an already impressive package."

Dover AFB is also home to the 436th Aerial Port Squadron -- one of four original units that ushered in the "cargo precision loading" age that "standardizes air cargo build-up from depot suppliers and AMC aerial ports to maximize volume and weight utilization," according to an AMC talking paper.

According to Master Sgt. Mitch Pykosz, precision loading program manager for AMC's Directorate of Logistics, Air Transportation Cargo Policy team, one area where efficiency comes into play with precision loading is utilizing as much pallet space as possible on both contract and military airlift missions -- which in turn requires fewer missions to complete.

The effort includes building pallets to their maximum weight or volume goals, based on specific aircraft requirements including the C-5M, Pykosz said. Through February 2012, the precision loading initiative has enabled a 9 percent mission utilization increase which led to an avoidance of 195 air missions saving the Air Force and AMC millions of dollars in flight costs.

Combine the precision loading initiative with the C-5M's cargo capability -- including a world record of 176,450 pounds -- and there is a greater possibility for increased efficiency. A C-5M can actually hold up to 245,000 pounds of cargo depending on a number of factors to include runway length and atmospheric conditions, said Master Sgt. Andy Hoots, command manager for C-5 loadmaster standards and evaluations at Headquarters AMC.

Staff Sgt. Norterious Jenkins, a C-5 loadmaster with Dover AFB's 9th Airlift Squadron, said he thinks the C-5M is the airlifter that, when flying on it, feels like "you're always going to be back on time." It changes the "broke on the flightline" mentality that some historically have said the C-5 had been known for.

"The M is not like the C-5s we've always known...they have the ability to do more," Jenkins said. "Some of the things this plane has done, compared to the B-model [for example], are mind boggling."

And maybe that's the best way to describe the C-5M -- "mind boggling" possibilities. Dover AFB is the current home to all three of the C-5Ms delivered to the Air Force. Eventually, other C-5 wings, such as the 60th Air Mobility Wing at Travis AFB, Calif., will have the aircraft as part of their daily operations. In turn, having the C-5M available may change the culture and the history of the C-5 community in a "super" way.

-ends-

buglerbilly

15-04-12, 12:35 AM

New, High-Tech Air Force One on Order

The Pentagon has requested two new Air Force Ones with more power and more gear.

By Eric Niiler

Fri Apr 13, 2012 07:40 AM ET

President Barack Obama walks up the steps of Air Force One.
Corbis

The Pentagon wants a new, upgraded Air Force One to fly around future presidents, but don't expect any radical new aerospace technologies.

The new model, however, will be able to fly longer on a tank of gas, avoid trouble and allow the president to communicate better with government, the military and the public.

"When it comes to a mission like this, you never want the president to be an early adapter of new and uncertain technology," said Richard Aboulafia, president of the Teal Group, an aviation consulting firm based in Fairfax, Va. "Unless there's a performance improvement, it's going to be trailing edge rather than cutting edge."

Plans for a new Air Force One appeared in the latest version of the Pentagon's aviation plans, according to Defense News. Officials haven't said which model they plan to purchase, but it is likely to be an updated version of the current Boeing 747 VC-25.

If military officials stick with a U.S. manufacturer like Boeing, that probably means using Boeing's latest 747-800 series, which has more powerful and efficient engines, and better aerodynamics. The 747-800 series made its maiden flight in 2010, and is only being used for cargo transport.

The first passenger liners are expected to be delivered by Boeing to several airline firms this year. The current Air Force One -- there are actually two aircraft which carry that designation when the president is aboard -- have been in service since 1990, and the new ones won't be ready until 2019 or 2020.

Because of electronics and communications upgrades after 9/11, the aircraft's power demands are "straining" the current engines, Defense News said.

Newer aircraft have more powerful engines that can operate more gear, according to experts.

"You would want to go with an airplane that can stay aloft for a long time using less fuel than a current airplane and maybe even fly higher," said Snoori Gudmundsson, assistant professor of aerospace at Embry-Riddle University in Daytona Beach, Fla.

The only bigger (but not longer) aircraft is the Airbus A380, made by the European consortium, EADS. But given Congressional home state politics, it's likely that the Pentagon would pick an American manufacturer, according to Barry Watts, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, and a former Air Force program analyst.

Watts says Air Force One is designed to flex the nation's political and diplomatic muscles, just like the arrival of an aircraft carrier.

"When it lands on your ramp in a foreign country, it projects American power and presence and influence," Watts said.

Unlike most commercial aircraft, Air Force One can refuel mid-air and its on board electronics can withstand an electromagnetic pulse, according to the White House website. It also has a mobile command center and advanced electronics that allows the president to function in the event of an attack on the U.S.

The president, his staff and the traveling press have 4,000 square feet of space on three levels, including a medical suite that can be used as an operating room.

buglerbilly

19-04-12, 12:35 PM

Long-Term Defense Aviation Plan Sticks To Strategy

Apr 18, 2012

By Jen DiMascio
Washington

The Pentagon’s long-term plan for aviation keeps its eye on recent strategic shifts while largely ignoring the budget situation.

Even as Congress wrestles with how to pare down the deficit, the Pentagon plans to spend $770 billion on aircraft purchases, operations, maintenance and related construction between fiscal 2013 and 2022, according to a report on the military’s 30-year aviation plan sent to Congress in early April by Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter.

Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group, calls the outlook in the aviation document “optimistic.”

The Pentagon’s road map follows closely the strategic guidance outlined by the military early this year, which continues a focus on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR).

That includes the continuation of major spending on unmanned aircraft. The Defense Department intends to increase the size of its fleet by 45% to 645 aircraft by fiscal 2022, according to the report delivered to Congress. To meet the demand for ISR, the Air Force will purchase enhanced sensors and replace its General Atomics MQ-1 Predators with MQ-9 Reapers. By the end of fiscal 2014, the Air Force plans to establish 65 orbits. The target of 645 unmanned aircraft is down by five from last year’s number, but still continues growth from the 445 airframes in fiscal 2013.

In addition to increasing the military’s ISR capabilities, four additional investment priorities are noted: providing “enabler capacity” by investing in air mobility and electronic warfare (EW) aircraft, buying fifth-generation fighters while maintaining enough inventory, modernizing long-range strike, and emphasizing modernization and readiness.

As for enabler capacity, the Navy aims to recapitalize its EW aircraft, holding its fleet of Boeing EA-18G Growlers steady at 114.

Aerial refueling tankers will support the aviation “enabler” priority, according to the report. The Air Force plans to buy 83 Boeing KC-46As by 2022 and complete the entire purchase of 179 aircraft seven years later.

The composition of the Air Force’s fighter fleet will change over the next decade, with F-35 Joint Strike Fighters comprising 25% of the force by fiscal 2022, rather than the current 7%.

Twenty years later, the military will have retired nearly all of the current force and will have started recapitalizing fifth- generation fighters, according to the report.

Aboulafia sees difficulty maintaining the fleet’s size in the long term. The military will be able to manage over the next decade, using life-extension programs and upgrades to keep current platforms alive. But beyond those initial 10 years, “it’s a recipe for a diminished superpower,” he asserts.

Given the number of airframes that will need to be retired, force structure will have to be significantly reduced, says Aboulafia. “You do it incrementally and hope that it will be below the political horizon,” he adds.

Whether any of these ambitions will be realized remains an annual guessing game. And staying away from the dynamics of near-term budgeting makes sense to some.

Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, agrees, saying it is difficult “to incorporate current fiscal concerns when a few changes in the outlook could radically alter the outcome.”

For example, if Congress allows the Bush-era tax cuts to expire, about one-third of the federal deficit will disappear, and that could be compounded if automatic budget reductions put into law last summer take place. “What that means is you can’t let 30-year plans be driven by the fiscal or the military concerns of the moment.”

However, the concerns of the moment are many, as Washington remains awash in speculation over how the budget for the next fiscal year will play.

Lawmakers and defense industry officials have expressed assurances that Congress will step in to rewrite a law passed last August to hand down an automatic budget cut of $1.2 trillion across the government before it takes effect in January 2013. But that conventional wisdom regarding the penalty known as sequestration appears to be changing.

Contractors are already seeing a slow-rolling of contractual commitments, Thompson says, adding that they are making contingency plans.

“There’s no way that it won’t take place,” says Gen. (ret.) Ronald Fogleman, former Air Force chief of staff, adding that because the fiscal year begins in October, the penalty of sequestration will impact fiscal 2013. And if Pentagon budgeters fail to plan for the possibility, “It’s going to make the rest of the year all that much more difficult.”

Photo: USAF

buglerbilly

21-04-12, 02:09 AM

Report Warns AF to Keep Flight Pay for UAV Crews

April 20, 2012

Military.com|by Michael Hoffman

The Air Force should continue giving flight pay to the pilots and sensor operators who never leave the ground or risk retention shortfalls, a report recommends.

Pilots of traditional manned aircraft howled when the Air Force announced in 2009 that it would issue incentive pay to pilots and sensor operators of the service's unmanned aircraft fleet, including the MQ-1 Predators and MQ-9 Reapers.

This was the first time the service issued Aviation Career Incentive Pay to officers and Career Enlisted Aviation Pay to enlistees who never actually left the ground.

Pilots of the service's remotely piloted aircraft fleet fly the drones gliding over Afghanistan from ground control stations locations located in the continental U.S. Enlisted sensor operators do the same.

Air Force personnel leaders asked RAND's Project Air Force team to research if the service should continue to issue the incentive pay and re-enlistment bonuses given to sensor operators. RAND researchers responded with a resounding yes in a report published last month.

"Our recommendation is to continue incentive pays for both career fields and retain the [sensor operator] bonuses because the consequences of failure to retain enough personnel would cause serious problems with filling operations, training, leadership, and staff positions," the report said.

Drone pilots can receive up to $840 per month in career incentive pay while sensor operators can receive up to $400 per month. The amount is dictated by years of aviation service.

Meanwhile, a sensor operator can receive a selective reenlistment bonus of $50,400 in the fourth year of service, $78,700 in the eighth year, and $79,200 in the twelfth year.

The Air Force stood up career fields for RPA pilots and sensor operators in 2009 after approval by service leaders at an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance summit in Washington.

Leaders scrambled to assemble more RPA teams to meet increasing demand from ground commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan for Air Force drones.

The military has measured the growth in demand by the number of combat air patrols – known as CAPs -- flown by the Air Force. CAP missions are flown 24/7 by an unmanned aerial system. When one aircraft runs out of fuel, another one takes its place and continues the mission.

In 2005, the Air Force had less than 10 CAP missions flying over Iraq and Afghanistan. By 2011, that number grew to 50 and service leaders plan to expand it even further to 65 CAP missions by 2013.

For each CAP, Air Force manpower requirements state that there should be 10 crews, which consist of one pilot and one sensor operator. Currently, only seven or eight are available, according to the report.

To make up for this shortfall, the Air Force has transferred pilots of a traditional manned aircraft to RPA ground cockpits. The service has also ramped up training production for RPA pilots and sensor operators.

The training pipeline will produce 146 and 168 new RPA pilots in 2012 and 2013. It produced 60 in 2011. The sensor operator training pipeline will actually level off after recent years of high production. In 2011, the Air Force trained 353 sensor operators. In 2012 and 2013, it will produce 327, according to RAND's report.

Air Force leaders cannot afford to risk the progress they've made, RAND researchers said, especially as the number of private companies looking to hire RPA pilots and sensor operators is sure to rise as the unmanned aircraft business expands. Once the Federal Aviation Administration opens national airspace to unmanned aircraft, the market for pilots could explode, RAND warns.

"If military spending on RPA continues at the pace some predict, so should employment opportunities," the report read.

Those pilots and sensor operators who separate from the Air Force and join the private sector stand to make a lot of money. RAND found that RPA pilots hired by private firms and deployed overseas made about $130,000 per year on average. Sensor operators, on average, made about $83,000 annually.

It's especially crucial for the Air Force to keep its sensor operators as the service introduces new sensors that can collect even more data than the old ones. A new sensor called ARGUS can collect 65 times the video that current sensors currently record.

The Air Force must continue to cough up the cash, even in these lean budget times, unless it wants to lose all the experience it has built over the last seven years and pay even more in additional training, according to the report.

"Cutting incentive pays for either officers or enlisted personnel would result in a significant decline in the cumulative retention of RPA pilots and [sensor operators]," RAND researchers wrote.

© Copyright 2012 Military.com. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

23-04-12, 10:52 PM

C-27J End Not Official, Yet USAF Moves Forward

Apr. 23, 2012 - 09:31AM

By MARCUS WEISGERBER

Steps toward canceling the C-27J are getting underway even though two powerful senators have asked the Pentagon to maintain the status quo until Congress passes legislation saying otherwise. (Master Sgt. Jeffrey Allen / U.S. Air Force)

The U.S. Air Force is moving ahead with plans to shutter the C-27J cargo plane program, despite the fact Congress has not yet approved the budget proposal that requested the termination.

Training for Air National Guard pilots who were supposed to fly the plane has stopped. And the Air Force, which had planned on delivering C-27Js to a Guard unit in Battle Creek, Mich., instead will store the planes at a contractor facility in Waco, Texas, where they will undergo finishing work, according to industry sources.

Canceling plans to move the C-27Js to Michigan will ultimately save money, Air Force officials said. If Congress overrules the Air Force’s proposal to cancel the program, the service will be able to rapidly reverse course, the officials said.

Yet the steps toward canceling the C-27J are getting underway even though two powerful senators have asked the Pentagon to maintain the status quo until Congress passes legislation saying otherwise.

“While we understand that doing so may help the department achieve more ‘savings’ than might be otherwise realized, the department should avoid taking actions that would restrict Congress’ ability to consider and act on the fiscal year 2013 budget request,” Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and John McCain, R-Ariz., chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, respectively, wrote in a March 19 letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

The two senators also asked the Defense Department to “not take actions to implement decisions that would be difficult or impossible to reverse by anticipating congressional approval of what may turn out to be very contentious proposals before the committees have had an opportunity to produce bills reflecting their responses to the fiscal year 2013 budget request.”

During a March 20 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley pledged to Levin that the Air Force would not make force structure changes until Congress reviewed the Pentagon’s fiscal 2013 budget request.

“[A]m I correct in believing that you’re not going to be making the force structure changes that were proposed in the [20]13 budget request until the congressional defense committees have had a chance to mark up that [20]13 budget request?” Levin asked.

“That’s correct, Mr. Chairman,” Donley replied.

Senate staffers have since asked the Air Force “to describe how what they’re doing complies with the promise from the secretary,” one aide said.

The Air Force will not exercise six contracts related to the C-27J program, a service official said. If the contracts are awarded and Congress approves canceling the program, the Air Force could be stuck with termination liabilities. The Air Force will not move aircraft and equipment to Michigan unless Congress tells them to continue the program.

“The letter [from Levin and McCain] does not say you can’t do anything,” the aide noted. “The letter says don’t implement decisions that would be difficult or impossible to reverse.”

Air Force officials said the service’s actions could be undone quickly.

“The ‘stop work’ orders for C-27J related bed-down activities at Battle Creek are prudent actions to preserve taxpayer resources while the Congress considers the President’s [20]13 budget proposal,” an Air Force spokeswoman wrote in an email. “These actions suspend work and are readily reversible should the Congress direct the DoD to continue the C-27J in [20]13 and beyond.”

The Air Force’s recommendation to end the C-27J program — built by L-3 Communications and Alenia Aermacchi — was one of a number of decisions that involved Air National Guard force structure. The active-duty component does not fly the cargo aircraft, which is used to resupply troops in Afghanistan.

Other decisions included moving aircraft out of the Guard and into active duty. The decisions have been unpopular in Congress since they touch many lawmakers’ districts. The Guard’s lobby is also bolstered by states’ governors, who have mobilized in opposition to the decisions.

The Air Force’s 2013 budget proposal recommends retiring 227 aircraft, including C-130s, C-5As and A-10s. Removing the aircraft, many of which reside in the Guard, from service will help the Pentagon achieve a $487 billion reduction in planned spending over the next decade.

Over the next five years, the Air Force must shed $54 billion from its budget.

Panetta has warned, as recently as last week, that if Congress does not approve the Pentagon’s proposed program terminations, lawmakers will have to take that money from higher-priority initiatives.

Not approving the program cancellations could negate a new military strategy and hollow the force, Panetta said at an April 16 briefing at the Pentagon.

“That could mean less money to buy high-priority ships or acquire the next-generation aircraft,” he said.

Defense committees in both chambers of Congress have been contemplating legislation that would block Air Force cuts to the Air National Guard, congressional sources said.

The House Armed Services Committee begins its markup of the 2013 defense authorization bill this week.

Several lawmakers whose districts stand to lose aircraft or personnel voiced their opposition to the Air Force’s proposed force structure cuts during an April 17 hearing, when the House Armed Services Committee gave noncommittee members the opportunity to propose legislation for the authorization bill.

buglerbilly

24-04-12, 11:58 AM

Pentagon Offers Budget Compromise to Placate States

Apr. 23, 2012 - 08:06PM

By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

The U.S. Defense Department has offered to fund more C-130s for the Air National Guard after state governors complained about proposed budget cuts. (Lockheed Martin)

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has offered to fund more C-130 aircraft for the Air National Guard to placate state governors complaining about proposed budget cuts that scale back fleet and personnel, officials said April 23.

Facing growing political pressure in an election year from governors and lawmakers in Congress, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Air Force leaders have come up with a compromise that would shift $400 million to the Air National Guard to fund 24 C-130 transport planes, defense officials told AFP.

To pay for the change, money would have to be cut from the Air Force’s budget for active duty airmen and aircraft, the officials said.

The move is unusual as the Pentagon usually makes no major changes to the gargantuan defense budget once it is submitted to Congress, and tends to hammer out compromises with lawmakers in Washington instead of state governors.

But the proposal came after Panetta and top officers held a series of meetings with governors on the issue in recent months, said defense officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

A bipartisan “council of governors” from various states had proposed a much more dramatic revision of the Air Force budget, moving more money and planes from active duty forces to the Air National Guard, including F-16 fighters, aerial refueling KC-135 tankers and unmanned drone aircraft.

Top defense and Air Force officials rejected the governor’s proposed changes, saying they would pose a threat to combat readiness and place a strain on active duty airmen who they say have had insufficient time back home between frequent deployments, defense officials said.

The compromise offered by the Pentagon was partly based on the idea that C-130 cargo planes are in keeping with the mission of the Air National Guard in US states, where governors turn to the Guard and the reserves to respond to natural disasters.

“We believe this proposal is very much in keeping with the national defense requirements laid out in our strategy and the public safety concerns expressed by the Council of Governors,” Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby said in an email.

“These aircraft play a vital role in our support to civil authorities, particularly in the event of natural disasters. It’s the right thing to do.”

The Defense Department has requested $613 billion for fiscal year 2013, essentially holding spending steady after a decade of massive budgets.

buglerbilly

25-04-12, 01:21 AM

Far from DC battles, C-27 gets glowing reviews

By Philip Ewing Tuesday, April 24th, 2012 9:00 am

The metaphorical C-27J battlefield has been mostly quiet since the skirmishes earlier this year over the Air Force’s plan to mothball its entire fleet. For all intents and purposes, the fight seems to be settled.

Air Force leaders heard the objections of Congress and Guard and Reserve airmen, but they were glancing at their watches and checking their BlackBerries under the table the whole time. Since then, they have apparently gone ahead with the first steps toward icing the C-27Js even without outside buy-in, as Defense News’ Marcus Weisgerber wrote this week.

On the real battlefield, however, far downrange in Afghanistan, the tale is different: An official Army story Monday, cited by Air Force Magazine’s Daily Report, depicts a little twin-engined airlifter that could, winning fans among the grunts who, once upon a time, were to have been its primary users. Here was the word from Richard Barker of the 25th Combat Aviation Brigade:

Since beginning operations in August 2011, two C-27J aircraft have been tactically controlled by the 159th and 25th Combat Aviation Brigades. They have performed 67 airdrops and delivered more than 277 container delivery systems containing vital supplies such as food, water, blood and ammunition to special operations forces located in the unforgiving terrain of Afghanistan. The 25th CAB makes this support possible as a result of its solid understanding of soldiers’ needs and its tactical control of the C-27J aircraft that are operated by the 702nd Expeditionary Airlift Squadron.

Got the setup? Air Force birds under the tactical command of Army aviation units, resupplying Army troops forward. OK, here we go:

Maj. Craig Jayson, executive officer for 3rd Battalion, 25th Aviation Regiment, 25th CAB, says with the C-27J relieving his unit’s Chinooks, the unit has the opportunity to fly more missions to forward operating bases which the C-27J does not have access to.

“We can focus on picking up personnel and equipment that are lower priority and fulfill requests that are normally canceled due to lack of resources,” said Jayson. “Overall, the C-27J increases our flexibility and ability to support more customers in a single day.”

An increase in C-27J missions also decrease the costs associated with CH-47 missions as well.

“The hourly operational cost of a resupply mission using the Chinook is more than $7,500 an hour for the CH-47D and $9,000 an hour for the CH-47F,” said Jayson.

Based off Landrum’s calculations, the U.S. Army has saved $30 million by conducting missions with the C-27J instead of the CH-47 Chinook. When it comes to relieving the CH-47 Chinook with fixed wing assets, the C-27J seems to be the best choice over other fixed-wing options.

“The C-27J has all of the benefits of a fixed wing aircraft such as speed, altitude, payload capacity and range, yet also possesses the ability to conduct many mission sets similar to rotary winged cargo aircraft,” said Sgt. Maj. Ronald Graves, 25th CAB operations sergeant major.

Adding to the list of the C-27J’s benefits, Graves said the aircraft can operate in adverse weather and with limited visibility. Also the C-27J can land on a 2,400-foot dirt strip as opposed to the 3,000 feet a C-130 Hercules requires. Perhaps the biggest advantage the C-27J currently offers the Army is the fact it is tactically controlled by 25th CAB commander Col. Frank Tate. The tactical control gives him the flexibility to provide immediate support to soldiers on the battlefield.

“This relationship allows for quick and dynamic tasking, when required, which greatly increases our ability to deliver nearly anything, anywhere, in support of the soldier in the fight,” said Graves.

Back to the metaphorical battlefield: These are shots across the Air Force’s bow and it looks like the Army’s gunners have their ranges dialed right in. The “customers” of the 25th CAB are loving their C-27Js, and this story even stacks them against the bird the Air Force says can do the job just as well: Its C-130 Hercules. Meanwhile, the Army saves money and wear by flying its Chinooks strategically, hitting the bases where the Spartans can’t go.

Will this endorsement, from the very “warfighters” in whose name defense leaders always try to act, have any effect on the mothballization of the C-27Js? Probably not — this is a truth vacuum, a reality-distortion zone, and unless the Spartan’s allies in Congress unequivocally put their foot down, it looks like their ultimate departure remains certain.

ADMk2

25-04-12, 04:18 AM

Yep, the US Army needs to step up and fight for this aircraft. It was to be theirs in the first place anyway. Tell USAF to get r**ted and go and publicly fight for this aircraft. A fleet of 70-80 of these things is small change for the US military in the scheme of things, but it would have a massive impact on the battlefield and save a fortune in Chinook and Osprey running costs.

buglerbilly

26-04-12, 10:38 PM

US House committee presses air force on Global Hawk

By: Zach Rosenberg Washington DC

2 hours ago

Source:

The House Armed Services Committee has made the first move to reverse the US Air Force's controversial decision to retire the Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk Block 30 fleet.

The committee's panel on tactical air and land forces passed an amendment that would prevent the USAF from spending taxpayer funds on efforts to retire the RQ-4 Block 30s, an imagery and signals intelligence gathering version of the Global Hawk family.

The panel's recommendation signals the beginning of a legislative battle with the Obama administration over the fate of the Block 30 fleet. Three more committees in the House and Senate must still pass separate versions of spending bills for the next fiscal year.

The Obama administration submitted a budget request in February that proposes to retire the Block 30 fleet.

©US Air Force

The Block 30 was built to replace the venerable Lockheed Martin U-2 as a high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft, but the programme was cancelled after the USAF concluded that it was significantly more expensive to operate than the U-2, and that the Block 30's sensors are inferior to the U-2's current equipment.

Since the retirement announcement in January 2012, Northrop has kept a full-court press in an attempt to keep the aircraft in service. Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities such as those the Global Hawk provides are among the most demanded services by combat commanders.

"Northrop Grumman is pleased that the House Armed Services Committee has proposed a solution that will allow Global Hawk Block 30 assets to continue to provide Combatant Commanders with information essential to national security," says Northrop.

Construction of other Global Hawk models, including the Block 40 (carrying a different sensor) and MQ-4C broad area maritime surveillance (BAMS) for the US navy, is unaffected.

buglerbilly

26-04-12, 10:53 PM

UAE-based F-22s A Signal To Iran

By Amy Butler abutler@aviationweek.com

Source: AWIN First

April 26 , 2012

As tensions between Tehran, Washington and Tel Aviv continue to mount over Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons technologies, the U.S. has quietly begun a deployment of its premier stealthy fighter, the twin-engine F-22, to the United Arab Emirates.

Multiple Lockheed Martin aircraft will operate out of Al Dhafra Air Base there, industry sources say. This is the same base from which U.S. U-2s and Global Hawk UAVs have been launched since shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

“The United States Air Force has deployed F-22s to Southwest Asia,” according to a statement from service spokesman Capt. Phil Ventura. “Such deployments strengthen military-to-military relationships, promote sovereign and regional security, improve combined tactical air operations and enhance interoperability of forces, equipment and procedures.” Ventura declined to specify what the aircraft’s mission is for this deployment.

Because of the F-22’s supercruise — or high, efficient rate of speed — stealth, thrust-vectoring and inherent intelligence-collection capabilities, it is considered the most sophisticated fighter in the world. Deploying it to any region causes residents there to take note, says one industry executive. The timing of the Persian Gulf deployment could be a signal from the U.S. to Iran to take seriously objections to the latter’s nuclear weapons ambitions.

“The F-22 is unlike any other fighter in the world and our friends and potential adversaries know it,” the executive says. “When we deployed the F-22s to Guam and Japan, everybody in Asia and the Pacific paid attention.”

The F-22 Raptor has conducted numerous deployments to the Pacific region, and in December 2009 traveled to southwest Asia for its first deployment there to shadow an international warfighting exercise, though it did not directly participate. One former F-22 program official notes that more deployments to desert regions are needed to keep maintainers current on sustaining the jets in such harsh conditions.

Though the F-22 has been deployed before, it has yet to see combat since it was declared operational in 2005; the high cost of the fighter is likely a reason for the Pentagon’s unwillingness to expose it to combat in a campaign such as Libya unless its high-end qualities are absolutely necessary for a mission. But the fighter has also been plagued by problems with its onboard oxygen-generation system.

Next week, Lockheed will host a ceremony to commemorate the final F-22 (No. 4195) exiting the Marietta, Ga., production line, closing a major chapter for Air Force procurement history and for Lockheed.

buglerbilly

01-05-12, 10:25 PM

‘Small Number’ of Pilots Wary of Flying F-22

U.S. Air Force Still Trying to Determine Cause of Hypoxia-related Incidents

May. 1, 2012 - 02:55PM

By BRIAN EVERSTINE

The Air Force grounded its entire F-22 fleet for seven months in May 2011 due to repeated cases of hypoxia. (Tech. Sgt. Michael Holzworth / Air Force)

A “very small number” of F-22 pilots have requested to not fly the U.S. Air Force’s Raptors following the grounding and unfruitful investigation into the oxygen problems plaguing the stealthy jet, the head of Air Combat Command said April 30.

The service has yet to identify a root cause for 11 unexplained hypoxia-related incidents, and the command has extended its investigation to looking at ground maintainers who have experienced oxygen-related problems in handling the jet, Gen. Mike Hostage said in a wide-ranging media briefing at Joint Base Langley -Eustis, Va.

There is a worry among pilots, Hostage said, but he does not see a reason to stand down. The briefing, in fact, came just days after the Air Force announced that a squadron of F-22s were headed to a deployment in southwest Asia. Officials on April 30 would not say where the F-22s were deployed from, or give additional details about their mission.

“The risk is not as low as I’d like it,” Hostage said of the deployed F-22s.

“This nation needs this airplane. I wish I had 10 times as many. It’s our best airplane,” he added.

The Air Force in May 2011 grounded its entire F-22 fleet for four months due to repeated cases of hypoxia. Maj. Gen. Charles Lyon, the director of operations for ACC, said that the F-22 has flown 12,000 sorties since September with 11 unexplained cases of hypoxia.

Since the grounding was lifted, pilots have taken extra precautions such as wearing a commercial pulse oximeter to measure the amount of oxygen in their blood and added a charcoal air filter to measure the amount of toxins in the air. The filters were recently removed, Lyon said, because analysis of more than 500 revealed no unhealthy amount of toxins post-flight.

ACC has directed all pilots to abort their mission and land the aircraft if they encounter any physiological problems, Hostage said. Since the directive was announced, which began after pilots were cleared to fly following the grounding, there has been an expected increase in incidents.

“We fully expect that we are going to have more incidents since we lowered the threshold,” Hostage said.

Hostage said the F-22 is back to flying long flights and at high altitude. The Raptors were contained to a lower ceiling immediately after the grounding was lifted.

A large task force, including engineers, doctors, physiologists, analysts and others, is continuing to try to determine a root cause. Lyon said he believes there is a root cause and that the service is narrowing down on it. Either pilots are not getting enough oxygen for some reason or toxins are either not being filtered or the aircraft is creating them, he indicated.

“The smoking gun is disassembled in a mosaic in front of us ... at some point we’re going to have the smoking gun assembled,” Lyon said.

Email: beverstine@defensenews.com

buglerbilly

02-05-12, 01:28 PM

DARPA goes to market for ViSAR technology

02 May 2012 - 10:58 by Andrew White in London

The US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is on the lookout for technology to aid the development of its Video Synthetic Aperture Radar (ViSAR) programme.

According to a broad agency announcement (BAA) released by DARPA on 1 May, innovative research proposals are being sought to allow EO sensors to ‘see’ through clouds.

A DARPA spokesman said: ‘Warfighters who encounter enemy forces on the ground benefit from overhead aircraft support. Some capabilities are lost, however, when cloud-cover obscures the view.

‘DARPA’s ViSAR programme seeks to develop and demonstrate an extremely high frequency (EHF) targeting sensor which operates through clouds as effectively as today’s IR sensors operate in clear weather,’ he continued.

According to the organisation, the goal for the programme is to generate a SAR system capable of providing high-resolution, full-motion video to engage mobile ground targets through clouds without having to change tactics, techniques and procedures. Also, there is a requirement for a GMTI capability.

DARPA programme manager Bruce Wallace added: ‘Ultimately, we intend to demonstrate a cloud-penetrating EHF sensor in a moveable gimbal that could be mounted on a variety of aerial platforms.’

More specifically, DARPA requires proposals for flight-worthy electronics, power amplifiers, integrated receiver and exciters as well as new algorithms to exploit sensor technology.

‘We’re looking for proposers with advanced expertise in scene simulation software to simulate realistic synthetic EHF radar data sets,’ Wallace stated. ‘We anticipate that the system developer will use these raw data sets to test image formation, autofocus, detection and geolocation algorithms.’

Responses are due by 18 June

buglerbilly

02-05-12, 10:40 PM

F-22 Hypoxia Review Turns To Pilot Gear, Flight Profiles

By Amy Butler abutler@aviationweek.com

Source: AWIN First

May 02 , 2012

U.S. Air Force officials are narrowing their focus on new combinations of factors as they explore oxygen deprivation issues that have claimed the life of one F-22 Raptor pilot and have plagued the fleet for more than a year.

The officials remain frustrated, however, that a “smoking gun” for the cause of pilot hypoxia is still elusive despite an extraordinary effort by the service to enlist help from scientists, doctors and fighter experts.

The F-22 is the Air Force’s premier, twin-engine, stealthy fighter, and it costs more than $200 million per copy to produce by Lockheed Martin, including the cost of research and development. It entered service in 2005, and the final F-22 is being turned over to the Air Force on May 2.

The hypoxia situation came to light after a November 2010 crash that claimed the life of a pilot; an investigation team found the pilot to have been at fault for the incident and his family is suing the aircraft’s manufacturers.

The fleet was grounded for a total of four months last year as officials scrambled to understand the cause of the crash; flights resumed in September. Since then, Air Combat Command officials say there have been 11 “flying physiological unknowns,” or hypoxic events. Though these have not resulted in a crash, the unknown nature of the incidents has the service rattled. “There is no startling similarity [in the incidents] other than . . . hypoxic-like indications,” says Gen. Mike Hostage, ACC commander.

The F-22’s capabilities demand punishing performance from pilots. It is the only fighter capable of sustained supercruise at Mach 1.5 without using military power—or afterburner—and can operate for long periods at 60,000 ft. Pilots are also exposed to extreme forces owing to the aircraft’s ability to quickly accelerate, decelerate and execute intense maneuvers using thrust-vectored propulsion.

Service officials temporarily limited the altitude of the aircraft, but eventually lifted all restrictions. Officials once focused on whether a toxin was being introduced into the oxygen supply for the pilot—which is powered by a Honeywell onboard oxygen-generating system. However, Maj. Gen. Charles Lyon, ACC’s director of operations, says that investigations using filters introduced into the pilot’s oxygen system have not turned up any conclusive evidence. After analyzing hundreds of these filters used in flight and comparing them with filters not used for flight, Lyon said that those not used in flight often showed higher rates of toxins. “This informed our thinking and research,” he says. Although the toxin theory has not been completely discounted, it is not a central focus for now.

Initially, the study focused on the aircraft, Lyon told reporters April 30 during a press conference here. Now, however, the team is looking into the physiological support equipment used by pilots and exploring whether there are commonalities in the flight profiles—various altitudes, maneuvers, etc.—that could be common to the incidents. The majority of the incidents have occurred at the end of a flight, Lyon says, prompting officials to wonder if there is a cumulative effect of some factors on the pilots.

One potential link among the incidents is not the standard physiological support gear—a G-suit, helmet and vest (carrying emergency items in the event of a crash).

The majority of incidents have happened with F-22s at Langley or Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. In addition to the standard physiological support gear of a G-suit, helmet and vest, the Alaska pilots also must wear cold-weather gear, while the Langley pilots must wear an anti-exposure suit when the Atlantic’s temperature dips lower than 55F. “That is what got me to thinking,” Lyon tells Aviation Week. In some cases, if the “fit is off by what would seem to be an insufficient amount,” it could impact the physiological support for the pilot. “It could be things such as the gear we are wearing and how it is assembled,” he says.

Lyon says the Air Force has teamed with experts supporting astronauts at NASA and divers in the Navy to study the extremes that humans can withstand in the hopes of finding clues.

Air Force officials are so sure about the toxin-related cause are sure enough of clearing the toxin cause that they are taking the filters off of the aircraft that were used to monitor the air, a decision made last week. However, they are researching whether better filters can be used to possibly uncover other types of elements in the cockpit air.

Additionally, pilots are wearing pulse oximeters to monitor their oxygen saturation levels during flight (the data are downloaded after landing and not dispatched in real time). Any time a pilot’s oxygen saturation drops below 85%, he is required to immediately return to base to allow officials to gather data.

Lyon acknowledges that this is having an affect on the amount of training hours that pilots can achieve. The service has conducted roughly 12,000 sorties since the Raptor returned to flight in September, totaling about 15,000 hr. of flight.

Hostage acknowledges that the incidents have some pilots leery about flying the warded some pilots off of flying the Raptor and opting not to, though he says these incidents are the exception. He notes that any guidance, such as returning to base with a low oxygen saturation level, can be waived in the event of an operational requirement for F-22 use.

Hostage is being trained to fly the F-22 soon; he says he is committed to taking the same risk in flying the F-22 as the young pilots now operating the Raptor.

Meanwhile, the Air Force acknowledged first to Aviation Week last week that F-22s have been deployed to Southwest Asia. The aircraft are operating out of Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates.

“The whole point is everybody pays attention” when F-22s are deployed to a particular region, Hostage says. “Our friends are very reassured by its presence.”

The F-22s are thought to be providing a presence to counter Iran’s ambitions to destabilize the Middle East and build long-range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons.

buglerbilly

04-05-12, 10:23 AM

USAF Should Keep Global Hawk Block 30

Posted on May 4, 2012 by The Editor

Global Hawk Block 30

Why is the US Air Force seeking to scrap its Global Hawk Block 30 unmanned reconnaissance planes? A new white paper Global Hawk Block 30 and Defense Strategy suggests the move is out of step with the Asia-Pacific strategy.

http://www.irisresearch.com/library/resources/documents/globalhawkblock30may2012.pdf

Global Hawk Block 30s fly as high as 65,000 feet and collect optical, infrared and radar pictures plus other intelligence. As you guessed from the soft tropic thunderclouds and wet runway, the Global Hawk Block 30 shown here is operational at Andersen AFB, Guam. The USAF stationed a detachment there in September 2010 to beef up strategy reconnaissance.

Scrapping Block 30s would be a shock. Just last year, the USAF insisted Global Hawk was essential to national security and said it planned to complete retirement of the U-2 by FY 2015. The USAF also spent $3.4 billion on these Global Hawks, according to a Feb. 6 report in Aviation Week.

Congress is taking note. On March 28, 2012, Rep. Jim Moran said “the taxpayer is best served” by continuing funding for Global Hawk Block 30. House marks point toward keeping Global Hawk Block 30 in the inventory.

Really, it’s a strategy issue. Global Hawk Block 30s are currently tasked with important surveillance objectives in the Pacific. Keeping an eye on China demands regular monitoring of a wider arc from the East China Sea through the Taiwan Strait and on to the South China Sea and Straits of Malacca. The distance from Guam is substantial and no other aircraft has the endurance of Global Hawk.
“If you look at the map of the Pacific,” said General Gary North, Commander, US AIr Forces, Pacific, “Guam is in the perfect location for this platform.”

Former Air Force Vice Chief of Staff General Carrol H. Chandler said the Air Force wouldn’t be trying to eliminate Global Hawk Block 30 if it wasn’t for the budget. He pointed out that high-altitude ISR is the Air Force’s job.

Back to the USAF throwing away new unmanned planes. The Global Hawk Block 30s were bought from 2009 to 2011 and average about 25 months old. Toddlers they are. The newest pair were delivered 7 months ago. Heck, my family has a kitten older than those Global Hawks. The kitten (a rescue) was born in early August 2011. The two newest Global Hawks arrived in the USAF inventory in November 2011. And so far we have only invested $452 in the kitten.

Seriously, dumping Global Hawk Block 30s for the U-2 feels all wrong. Its like a perilous first step back from relying on unmanned systems. Its a complete reversal for the USAF. Another example of spending on innovative research and failing to buy in mission quantity. Why bail so soon after the painstaking 2011 Nunn-McCurdy recertification? Most of all, why leave the Pacific and other regions uncovered? Let’s hope stakeholders don’t let this hasty decision turn into a major blunder.

Source: IRIS Independent Research

buglerbilly

09-05-12, 10:45 PM

USAF moves to new phase of engine tech development

By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC

1 hours ago

Source:

The US Air Force has started work on a follow-on effort to further develop next-generation turbine engine technology called the adaptive engine technology development, a senior service official tells Congress.

"It is a follow-on programme to the ADVENT (Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology) programme which is looking at the next generation of turbine engine technology," says Lt Gen Janet Wolfenbarger, military deputy to the USAF acquisitions chief. "It is intended to be a competitive acquisition."

The tender to work on the project will be open to all bidders, she says. The aim is to reduce specific fuel consumption by 25%, but it will also help preserve the US industrial base.

"It is pure technology maturation," Wolfenbarger cautions. "It is not the start of an EMD [engineering manufacture development] programme."

The idea is to advance the technology to a point where it could be used on a next-generation fighter or bomber platform in the future-should such a programme materialize in the future. Wolfenbarger flatly says that it not an effort to create an alternative engine for future developments of the Lockheed Martin F-35.

Propulsion is the key to developing a next-generation tactical aircraft since it takes longer to develop an engine than it does an airframe, said Rear Admiral Willam Moran, the US Navy's director of air warfare during a speech last month about the USN nascent F/A-XX effort.

The current ADVENT endeavor is being conducted by two separate companies- Rolls Royce and General Electric.

buglerbilly

16-05-12, 05:03 AM

Panetta Orders Air Force to Act on F-22 Safety Woes

By Otto Kreisher

Published: May 15, 2012

PENTAGON: Unhappy with the Air Force's handling of the long-simmering problems with the oxygen system on the most expensive fighter plane in history, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta ordered restrictions on F-22 flights and told the Air Force to speed up its efforts to prevent Raptor pilots from experiencing life-threatening hypoxia in flight.

It certainly looks as if the two fighter jocks who risked their careers by airing their concerns about the safety of the Air Force's prized F-22 super fighter on 60 Minutes got Panetta's attention.

At a briefing here today, spokesman George Little said Panetta has ordered the Air Force to "accelerate" installation of a backup system that automatically supplies oxygen to a pilot if there is a problem with the primary system. The F-22 has a backup system but pilot's must turn it on. When they are suffering from hypoxia, pilots find it very difficult to think and act, meaning a manual backup system may not be of much use.

The secretary also restricted Raptor flights to stay close to their airfields so pilots can land quickly should they experience problems with their oxygen system. Little and Navy Capt. John Kirby said Panetta did not set a specific limit on how far from their home field the Raptors could fly, leaving that decision to the judgment of the pilots. But they said the restriction will prevent F-22s from continuing to fly the national air defense missions from their base in Alaska. Other aircraft will have to assume those missions, they said.

Panetta also told the Air Force to report to him regularly on progress in correcting the problem with the F-22's oxygen system, which has caused at least one fatal accident.

A longtime critic of the F-22's costs and development problems, Winslow Wheeler, was not impressed with Panetta's actions.

"The restrictions do not terminate the flights and continue to expose pilots to the possibility that the 'hypoxia' problem is not just oxygen deprivation; unknown toxins may be affecting them and ground crew. The '60 Minute'" interview of the pilots and other information subsequently made available make it clear it may not be just an oxygen problem. Until the actual nature of the problem is uncovered, the pilots and ground crew remain at risk. The rationale for a fleet wide grounding remains clear," Wheeler, a member of the AOL Board of Contributors and a defense expert at the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), said in an email. "Also, what is to become of the F-22s deployed to the Persian Gulf? Those pilots would appear to also be at risk and the flight restrictions do not address their situation."

The Lockheed Martin-built Raptor is the Air Force's pride and joy, although it has been plagued by controversy throughout its long development process and short operational experience. It is the world's first fifth-generation fighter, boasting low radar signature -- or stealth -- and it can fly at supersonic speeds without using a fuel-guzzling afterburner. The Raptor is touted as able to detect and kill any adversary before the enemy knows it is near.

But, as is common with most highly advanced weapon systems, its development and early production were mired in technical problems, schedule delays and soaring cost overruns. Its escalating price forced Congress to cut production to 187, a fraction of what the Air Force wanted.

Although the Air Force says the flyaway cost of each Raptor is about $178 million, the GAO put the unit price at $412 million. The total program cost more than $79 billion.

Although it has been operational since December 2005, the Raptors have never been sent into combat and the first F-22 unit was deployed to the Persian Gulf region just this year.

The latest problem with the Raptors emerged two years ago when stories began to emerge about pilots experience symptoms of hypoxia -- shortage of oxygen -- while flying. Oxygen deprivation was confirmed as the cause of a fatal crash that killed Capt. Jeff Haney in Alaska in November 2010, although the Air Force accident investigation blamed the pilot for failing to activate his emergency oxygen system before losing consciousness.

Other pilots have complained about headaches and other symptoms of oxygen shortage, and the Air Force grounded the entire F-22 fleet for four months last year, but returned the Raptors to flight without having determined a cause.

The issue became toxic when two Raptor pilots with the Virginia Air National Guard -- Maj. Jeremy Gordon and Capt. Josh Wilson -- went on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes show in their flight suits May 6 to say they have refused to fly the F-22 because of concerns about the safety of the fighter.

Refusing to fly an assigned aircraft can be grounds for stripping a pilot of his wings and being forced out of the service. Military officers going outside their chain of command to appear on national TV to complain about their equipment also can lead to punishment. But the air Force quickly bestowed Gordon and Wilson with whistleblower protection under pressure from members of Congress

Little and Kirby would not say that Panetta issued his orders because he was dissatisfied with the Air Force's handling of the Raptor's oxygen problem, saying he acted because of his concern for the safety of the pilots.

But neither of the spokesmen used the phrase - "full confidence" in the Air Force leadership, which is common in such cases.

The two spokesmen could not put a time on how long the new restrictions would stand. Kirby said the Air Force has said the testing of the automatic backup oxygen system was expected to be completed in November and installations are to start in December and go into 10 aircraft a month. The F-35 boasts an automatic oxygen backup system.

buglerbilly

16-05-12, 01:23 PM

Defense Chief Restricts Stealth Jet Till It Stops Choking Pilots

By Spencer Ackerman Email Author May 15, 2012 | 3:07 pm

An F-22 Raptor. Photo: USAF

For five years, America’s most expensive fighter jets have been poisoning their pilots and crew. On Tuesday, the Defense Secretary finally stepped in — restricting the flights of the F-22 Raptor, and ordering the Air Force to begin an “expedited installation” of an automatic backup oxygen system for the entire fleet of Raptors, Pentagon spokesman George Little tells reporters. But Panetta is allowing the stealthy dogfighter to keep flying — for now.

The new oxygen systems will undergo flight tests through November, with installation beginning in December and proceeding in January 2013 at a rate of 10 planes per month. Additionally, the Air Force will have to fly its Raptors near a “proximate landing location” to make sure that pilots can land quickly if their planes’ oxygen systems begin to fail. And the Air Force will both work with the Navy and NASA to figure out the Raptor’s mysterious engineering flaw — whose root cause the Pentagon still does not know — and must now give Panetta monthly reports on its progress.

“There’s no margin for error here,” Little’s colleague, Navy Capt. John Kirby, said. “Safety is a zero-sum game.”

But Panetta isn’t grounding any of the planes in the Raptor fleet — a step the Air Force took twice last year after pilots reported disorientation and other symptoms of “hypoxia,” a condition indicating a lack of oxygen. “The secretary believes that this is the prudent course right now,” Kirby told Danger Room. Ongoing flights “allow us to continue to examine the aircraft closely and to try to figure out what happened. There’s a troubleshooting process that’s going on right now, so the aircraft being in operation assists in that process.”

At least 12 pilots have reported symptoms of hypoxia since April 2008. More mysteriously, F-22 ground crews have also reported hypoxia-like symptoms. At least one pilot may have died in connection with the oxygen problems, though the Air Force attributes the death to pilot error. And while the Air Force doesn’t yet know the source of the problem, some aviation experts think the problem isn’t suffocation, but rather amounts of engine oil contaminating the F-22′s air systems.

Both spokesmen denied that Panetta had lost confidence in the Air Force’s handling of the F-22 inquiry. “The Secretary believes that the Air Force leadership shares his sense of urgency,” Little said. Neither explained why Panetta was stepping in to the Air Force’s investigation, aside from calling him “deeply concerned with pilot safety.”

Earlier this month, however, two Raptor pilots came forward to discuss the plane’s flaws on 60 Minutes. They said they spoke for a “vast, silent majority” of pilots apprehensive about flying a jet that could choke them. The pilots sought out protection from Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, a fellow Air Force pilot, but that hasn’t appeared to stop the Air Force from issuing a letter of reprimand to one of them that could herald the end of his career.

The F-22 will continue to fly, for the time being, even as the search for the engineering flaw continues. Panetta’s rules limiting how far pilots can fly the F-22 are flexible — pilots must show a “prudent amount of proximity to a landing strip,” Kirby said — in order to make sure pilots can complete their assigned missions. Still, that’s a pretty serious restriction on an aircraft with a range of more than 1,600 nautical miles. But Little said it will mean “long-duration airspace control flights in Alaska will be performed by other aircraft.”

Nevertheless, a scheduled deployment of Raptors to an airbase the United States uses in the United Arab Emirates, near Iran, will continue as planned.

The Air Force wants the F-22, one of the most advanced warplanes ever designed, to be among the centerpieces of its future. Yet the jet has never fired a shot in anger, and the persistent oxygen problem raises questions about whether it will any time soon. It is also one of the most expensive planes the Air Force has ever purchased, costing between $137 million and $678 million per plane depending on how you count. But the Pentagon isn’t backing away from a plane that chokes its pilots.

“We still value it,” Kirby said. “We still need it. It is a very powerful arrow in the quiver.”