USAF Gameplan

[buglerbilly]

SecAF unveils service's game plan in future security environment

(Source: U.S Air Force; issued January 22, 2010)

WASHINGTON, D.C. --- The Air Force's top civilian addressed Air, Space and Cyberspace Power in the 21st Century during his portion of the 38th Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis-Fletcher Conference on National Security Strategy and Policy Jan. 20, here.

Air Force Secretary Michael Donley noted the service's challenge to "plan for uncertainty in a complex security environment," with a multi-faceted approach to supporting combatant commanders and national leadership.

The secretary also discussed strategies to allow the service to plan for uncertainty and ambiguity, mitigate the possibility of surprise, and both shape and recover from what Secretary of Defense Robert Gates described as likely "imperfect assessments" about the future.

Strategies include "engaging with partners and shaping the environment, making careful decisions in posturing U.S. forces abroad, developing balanced forces, promoting operational innovation, and developing the institutional capacity for change," the secretary said.

He underscored the significance of joint initiatives, increased capabilities and reduced vulnerabilities in a 21st century security environment.

"The complex, hybrid nature of future conflict will continue to challenge us and will demand coalition, whole-of-government and joint applications of power," Secretary Donley said.

The secretary added that national and international security will continue to be a "team sport" as the service confronts a wide range of strategic challenges such as global terror networks, nuclear deterrence, space, cyber and "rising economic and regional powers whose intentions may be unclear."

"The Air Force needs to remain vigilant in tying our work to the National Security Strategy, the (Quadrennial Defense Review) and other authoritative guidance that sets the direction for DoD and the larger national security community," he said.

Secretary Donley cited that Air Force presence in regions of interest is critical to building partnerships and partner capacity along the way. "Engagement provides early warning and helps us understand the direction and pace of change through the eyes of potential adversaries and partners in the region."

He added that continuous engagement also creates avenues for sharing perspectives of the strategic environment and opportunities to shape that environment in ways favorable to the U.S.

"Well-developed air forces often seek partnership with us in the most advanced weapon systems, like the Joint Strike Fighter and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance or space-based capabilities," Secretary Donley said.

The secretary continued that building partner capacity as an Air Force core function must be "sufficiently robust and flexible to address a broad range of engagement needs."

Secretary Donley described basing access as "the lifeblood" of a globally oriented Air Force as the service seeks the right balance between the forward stationing of U.S. forces in key regions and periodic rotations and deployments. He explained sending the right message of long-term interest and commitment while preserving greater flexibility in the service's global posture.

He said that the identification and exercise of contingency basing remains important to the force, particularly the mobility and tanker forces that facilitate joint movement and logistics.

"This is why we also sustain periodic deployments of long-range strike aircraft in the Pacific," he said, "and why, as we eventually field the (F-35) Joint Strike Fighter, we will consider the need for early beddowns outside the continental U.S."

"(The service) must build in the flexibility that enables our forces to operate effectively across the spectrum of conflict," he said.

This flexibility includes enabling such capabilities as C4, mobility, air refueling and ISR, on which the entire joint force depends at any level of conflict.

According to the secretary, the balance also reflects the need for a broad range of capabilities. "While reinforcing our counter-insurgency capabilities, we're also building the Joint Strike Fighter. While working on command and control for missile defense, we're building light attack armed reconnaissance and light air support aircraft. While planning for the recapitalization of the tanker fleet, we're strengthening space situational awareness and cyber defense. And, while building up language and cultural competency, we continue research on directed weapons," Secretary Donley said.

With contingency operations and humanitarian missions in Haiti in full swing, the secretary noted that the conference was occurring "at a most important time."

"We are challenged to meet today's requirements while preparing for tomorrow's and doing both with fewer resources than we'd like," he said.

Noting such pitfalls as planning too far ahead, getting mired in processes or locking into a single approach for success, Secretary Donley emphasized the institutional competence for change as the most important capability the service can foster.

"We need the capacity and culture to anticipate and recognize change early and respond quickly and effectively to new facts and circumstances," he said. "Developing new joint initiatives, capabilities and closing vulnerability gaps will be important as we move into the future."

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

USAF 30-Year Plan Lays Out Aircraft Acquisition Through 2040

By bruce rolfsen

Published: 6 Mar 2010 16:07

The U.S. Air Force is taking a long look down the road at buying and fielding new airplanes.



A U.S. Air Force B-2 Spirit bomber is towed to a parking spot Feb. 12 at Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii. The 30-year Air Force plan calls for development of a new long-range strike aircraft by 2020. (TECH. SGT. SHANE A. CUOMO / U.S. AIR FORCE) Mandated by Congress, the "Aircraft Investment Plan" maps out how many planes the Air Force, U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Navy plan to buy through 2020 and sets goals for 2021-2040. It does not include helicopters.

The report calls for a joint approach to long-range strike and electronic warfare but does not drastically alter the Air Force's announced plans for its two main acquisitions this decade - the F-35 Lightning II and KC-X tanker

By aircraft, what the report foresees for the Air Force:

Combat

■ Bomber: The Air Force could spend $2 billion to $4 billion a year to develop a new long-range strike aircraft by 2020.

Whether the plane will have a pilot onboard or will fly at supersonic speeds is undecided. The report says: "A study is underway to identify the right mix of manned and unmanned technologies … and to determine the right balance between range, payload, speed, stealth, and onboard sensors."

Until the new bomber arrives, the Air Force will keep about 160 B-52 Stratofortresses, B-1B Lancers and B-2 Spirit bombers.

■ F-22 Raptor: The service will spend $1.9 billion to upgrade its 180 fighter jets with improved communications and avionics gear. Retirement of the Raptors could begin in 2025.

■ F-35: The Air Force is in line to buy 602 F-35s through 2020 at a cost of about $70 billion. Two-thirds arrive in 2016 or later. The Air Force fleet will eventually total 1,763 jets.

■ MQ-9 Reapers: Forecasts call for the service to buy 372 of the attack and reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicles from 2011 through 2018. The price tag: about $820 million. Later models will have an electronic warfare capability.

■ RQ-4 Global Hawks: Four to five remote-controlled jets will arrive each year through 2017. There is no projection for later years.

The report did not offer an overall cost for the RQ-4s; for 2011, the Air Force wants $737 million for four Global Hawks, their payloads and logistics support.

Mobility

■ KC-X: The service is set to spend about $30 billion through 2020 to develop and buy 109 new tankers.

■ Intra-theater airlift: The Air Force should continue to buy C-130J Hercules to replace older C-130 E and H models. The study projects buying 63 C-130Js through 2020 for about $6 billion.

■ Strategic airlift: The service wants to maintain an fleet of 314 large cargo planes, a mix of 223 C-17s and 91 C-5s. The report recommends the Air Force begin development of a new cargo jet starting in 2015.

E-mail: brolfsen@militarytimes.com

[ARH v.3.1]

Retirement of the Raptors could begin in 2025.

This really is starting to look like $69 billion down the shitter! The entire program seems to be misspent resources.

[Tim]

I was just thinking that, the history books might remember the Raptor saga a little differently to the stuff currently trotted out by the F-22 Uber Alles crowd... it's a real shame about the fleet-wide issues they've had, if only they'd gone about designing the systems in a different way. Could have been almost as capable as the fanboys would have you believe... almost.

[Gubler, A.]

The 26 page plan can be downloaded from here:

http://www.militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/30yearaviation.pdf

Interesting stuff.


Meet the demand for persistent, unmanned, multirole intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. The number of platforms in this category—Global
Hawk-class, Reaper, and Predator-class systems— will grow from approximately 300 in FY
2011 to more than 800 in FY 2020, including the Army’s Extended-Range/Multipurpose
unmanned aerial system (UAS) and the Navy’s Broad-Area Maritime Surveillance UAS
aircraft. This nearly 200 percent capacity increase will be effectively multiplied by
capability improvements afforded by the acquisition of vastly improved sensors and the
replacement of Air Force Predators with more capable Reapers. This plan calls for growth in
Air Force unmanned Predator and Reaper platforms from a capacity of 50 orbits in FY 2011
to 65 by FY 2013. The Department will assess the need for more capacity in future plans.

200% increase in ISR capability from FY11 to FY20.


By FY 2040, almost all of today’s
“legacy” force will have retired and the Department will have begun recapitalization of its
fifth-generation force. These far-term recapitalization plans cannot be defined with any
degree of precision today, making investment projections difficult beyond the wellunderstood
procurement plans for the JSF. The Department is continuing to evaluate
projected threats and the alternative means for defeating those threats. It is anticipated that a
family of systems—mixes of manned and unmanned aircraft, with varying stealth
characteristics, and advanced standoff weapons—will shape the future fighter/attack
inventory. These tradeoffs are being examined now, and subsequent aviation plans will
reflect the resulting acquisition decisions.

2040 the key date for next generation air combat (ie fighter) capability.

[McDethWivFries]

Was the Raptor really that much of a flop or was it simply good but over hyped?

[Tim]

Was the Raptor really that much of a flop or was it simply good but over hyped?

McDeth, if you go to the URL below and read the comments appearing under the article (specifically, the comments made by gf0012-aust - does he still frequent T5C?), you should get a pretty good idea of some of the problems. I certainly found it very interesting.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/20090704/page1.aspx

[McDethWivFries]

Cheers Tim

[buglerbilly]

McDeth, if you go to the URL below and read the comments appearing under the article (specifically, the comments made by gf0012-aust - does he still frequent T5C?), you should get a pretty good idea of some of the problems. I certainly found it very interesting.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/20090704/page1.aspx

GF is very busy at the moment but should be back soon enough.................

[buglerbilly]

US Air Force prefers extending old fighters' life

Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz told reporters that any move to buy new F-15 fighters built by Boeing Co (BA.N) or F-16s built by Lockheed would take money away from the F-35 fighter program.

Instead, the service would prefer to do service life extensions for the older fighters, at about 10 to 15 percent of the cost of buying new planes.

"We do not think it is wise to dissipate the limited pool of resources that we have available for F-35 by procuring new, lesser capable aircraft that will last as long," Schwartz said after addressing an Air Force Association breakfast.

He acknowledged that the service needs to verify that service life extensions are possible to the older planes.

"We do not think it prudent to utilize precious procurement dollars for anything but fifth-generation aircraft," he said. (Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa)

[buglerbilly]

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

DATE:31/03/10

SOURCE:Flight International

USAF rules out new F-15s and F-16s to narrow ‘fighter gap’

By Stephen Trimble

Delays and cost overruns for the Lockheed Martin F-35 have not changed the US Air Force's plans to deactivate about 250 fighters later this year, says Chief of Staff Gen Norton Schwartz.

The USAF, however, has begun destructive tests on Boeing F-15s and Lockheed F-16s to prove the viability for a potential service life extension programme, says Schwartz, who spoke to reporters on 30 March after a breakfast speaking event hosted by the Air Force Association.

"At 10-15% of the cost [of a new fighter] you could perform a SLEP," Schwartz says, "which would get us close to where we need to be in, we think, a more affordable way".

Schwartz also rejected buying the latest version of the F-15 and F-16 -- or "fourth-generation-plus" fighters -- despite a new two-year slip nearly 90% projected cost overrun for the F-35.

"To be sure, we do not think it prudent to utilize precious procurement dollars for anything but fifth-generation aircraft," Schwartz says.

The USAF has terminated Lockheed F-22 production with 186 aircraft in inventory after 2011, leaving only plans to acquire 1,763 F-35s over the next 30 years to modernize its fighter fleet. Meanwhile, the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review set the tactical aircraft requirement at about 2,000 fighters.

During the F-35's projection lifetime in production, however, the USAF faces a growing fighter inventory gap made even more complicated by the Lockheed's cost and schedule problems.

Last year, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported alarming trends. Twelve Air National Guard units today patrol US airspace with F-16s scheduled for retirement by 2020. As of late 2008, only one of the 12 units was scheduled to receive F-35s by 2020 to continue flying the mission.

The increasing gap in the fighter inventory prompted a US lawmaker to predict the air force's dependence on the F-35 will be a "monumental mistake".

"When these F-16s and F-15s are no longer able to fly and the F-35s still has problems because somebody hasn't figured it out, you're going to have air guard units that are not going to have planes," says Representative Frank LoBiondo, who represents a district that includes an F-16 base, during a 24 March hearing.

But Schwartz repeated the USAF's long-standing policy that buying F-15s and F-16 today is senseless because they will be obsolete long before they can be replaced by a modern fighter design.

To bridge the gap, the USAF considers it more logical to perform a service life extension programme (SLEP). But Schwartz added an important caveat. The USAF still has not determined whether the SLEP would be technically or financially viable.

"I think it's pretty clear our strategy is to pursue service life extension to the extent that that is required rather than purchase new, four-and-a-half generation while we are bringing on F-35," he says. "We do not think it is a wise to dissipate the limited pool of resources that we have available for F-35 by procuring new lesser capable aircraft that will last as long."

[Gubler, A.]

DoD: Next 'Bomber' May Be a Family of Systems

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4559485&c=AME&s=AIR

By JOHN T. BENNETT
Published: 29 Mar 2010 16:22 Print | EmailT

he U.S. Defense Department is examining how to fit "complementary" tools on the "family of systems" that would replace a long-range bomber concept terminated last year, Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter said March 29.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates in April 2009 canceled a years-long effort to establish requirements and a formal development program for a new long-range bomber. Gates felt the department needed to stop that work, which was led by the Air Force, and begin a new look at how the U.S. military could best fulfill all the missions envisioned for a new deep-penetrating bomber.

After months of examining, Pentagon officials in recent months have said they expect to replace the former long-range strike aircraft concept with a "family of systems," each designed to conduct specific kinds of missions. Speaking to an industry audience in Arlington, Va., Carter said it is likely that the platforms will be designed to do tasks deemed "complementary" to one another.

Then-Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley in the mid-2000s used terms like long-range strike and persistent ISR when describing the service's mission requirements for a new bomber aircraft. Carter used the same phrases in his National Aeronautics Association presentation and added two more to things the "family of systems" will do: "prompt global strike and electronic attack."

The former refers to a next-generation weapon that can be launched quickly to take out fleeting targets anywhere around the globe; the latter refers to offensive and defense missions like jamming enemy signals.

Although Carter said officials "are still thinking through" what the family of platforms will have to look like, he said some of them likely will be "dual-use."

For instance, an aircraft designed for electronic attack missions also could be armed with complimentary jamming equipment, he said. And a long-range strike aircraft could be fitted with sophisticated ISR sensors.

Some of the family's platforms, Carter said, will be "stand-off systems" while others would be "stand-in." And some will be "reusable" where others "could be expendable."

The Pentagon's senior acquisition, technology and logistics official also said that, as Pentagon officials decide how to move forward with the family of systems concept, they will factor in industrial base implications.

Officials "have to keep in mind," he said, "that if certain capabilities [within U.S. defense firms are] allowed to whither, it will be hard to replicate them."

Carter added that the Pentagon "has a special responsibility to segments of industry," and promised DoD officials that, as part of the family of systems program, the department "will be looking at all the contributions each segment can make."

[buglerbilly]

DoD: Next 'Bomber' May Be a Family of Systems

Got it already under this thread here.............

http://www.w54.biz/showthread.php?71-USAF-Future-Bomber

............entitled USAF Future Bomber!

[SteveJH]

Plus I assume they'd also get stuck with any new aircraft for the next 30 years or so, whereas life extended airframes would have a much shorter period of service life remaining.

[SteveJH]

GF is very busy at the moment but should be back soon enough.................

Looks like he was on Strategy Page having some fun in another F-35 argument....sorry, discussion.....Hope he's having an interesting time wherever he is off to.

[buglerbilly]

US Air Force Eyes Service-Life Extensions for Older Fighters

By JOHN REED

Published: 2 Apr 2010 15:43

U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz confirmed that the air service has begun stress tests on its fleet of F-16 Falcons to help determine how to keep several hundred of the jets airworthy through the end of the decade to hedge against delays in the delivery of the service's 1,763 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

"We're conducting destructive structural assessments on our F-16 and F-15 aircraft to make sure that our engineering estimates are accurate with respect to" the planes' remaining service lives, Schwartz told reporters after a March 31 Air Force Association-sponsored speech in Arlington, Va.

"I think it's pretty clear that our strategy is to pursue service-life extensions [SLEPs] to the extent that is affordable rather than purchase new generation four-and-a-half aircraft while we're working hard to bring on F-35," said Schwartz. "I do not think it is wise to dissipate the limited pool of resources available for F-35 by procuring less capable aircraft that will last as long" as the F-35s.

Some lawmakers are pressing the Air Force to buy new so called 4.5 generation fighters, such as Boeing's F-15SE Silent Eagle or Block-60 F-16s to prevent a fighter gap.

He went on to say that, if viable, SLEPs could cost the Air Force only 10 percent to 15 percent the cost of buying new fighters such as Boeing's F-15SE Silent Eagle or Block 60 F-16s. However, if the costs spike higher than those numbers, the service may have to rethink that plan. Still, Schwartz was adamant that the Air Force cannot afford to purchase new jets based on older designs if it wants to keep its F-35 buy on track.

"We do not think [it makes sense] to utilize precious procurement dollars to buy anything but fifth-generation aircraft," said Schwartz.

The Air Force is retiring 250 of its oldest F-15 Eagles, F-16 Falcons and a handful of A-10 Thunderbolts this year in a move expected to save $3.5 billion over the next five years.

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Next-Gen UAVs and Weapons Planned

Posted by David A. Fulghum at 4/9/2010 8:44 AM CDT

Unmanned designs and electronic attack capabilities will be heavily represented in planning for the sixth generation of U.S. warplanes.

“We’re looking at our next generation Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPAs) more as standard trucks that would be modular and able to be configured to support several possible missions,” says Maj. Gen. Tom Andersen, Air Combat Command’s director of requirements. “Generally, we’re likely to see much less on-board processing. “Also key will be machine-to-machine communications and automated decision making aids so that [information] can be limited to decision quality data. It also will help us with the manpower intensive backend [of RPA operations] if people can limit or automate some of the activity that eats up those manhours.”

Upgrades to Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars could turn them into fighter-sized directed energy weapons for both manned and unmanned aircraft.

“An issue with most directed energy concepts is that usually you can’t see the [HPM] weapon’s point of impact nor the effect on the target,” Andersen says. “So how do you boresight that weapon and produce a known effect? Is that effect temporary or permanent? What does the strike planner want and what can he trust? How do you treat it like a real weapon so that the joint force commander knows the capability it will deliver?”

AESA radars also may be the core of a new jammer and self-protection suite similar to the Navy’s next-generation jammer program.

“There is no next generation jammer per se for us,” says Brig. Gen. Dave Goldfein, ACC’s director of air and space operations (A3). “There are capabilities that we’re looking for, but there’s no program of record. I don’t think we’ve scratched the surface on AESA. We haven’t got it on the F-35 yet so that we can wring it out, but I think it is going to have tremendous capability for both electronic attack and electronic protection.”

The capability will allow aircrews to find, avoid and neutralize enemy emitters on the battlefield. Remotely piloted aircraft are also certain to be part of the offensive mix, ACC officials say. Rather that working toward a single, elegant but expensive solution, they are looking for multiple ways of attacking a foe electronically.

The next generation of aircraft will follow an incremental approach.

“It will be logical, sustainable and affordable,” Goldfein says. “Long Range Strike, Sixth Generation Fighter, follow on to the MC-12 and MQ-1/9 will have evolutionary but multiple capabilities such as ISR and electronic attack-protection and strike.”

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Afghanistan and Future Wars - What's the Connection?

Posted by David A. Fulghum at 4/9/2010 9:00 AM CDT

U.S. Air Force planners, charged with fitting requirements into a shrinking budget, are looking at the common needs for irregular and conventional and cyber wars.

So far, the operational pull from Afghanistan is for small, precise weapons.

“The requests I have been getting is in the arena of limited effect [grenade size explosions without fragmentation] kinetic weapons that are all-weather, day/night, high precision and low collateral damage,” says Brig. Gen. Dave Goldfein, Air Combat Command’s director of air and space operations (A3).

Specifically, troops want bombs that create grenade-size explosions without fragmentation that can make the best use of intelligence by destroying a very small area – perhaps one room in a house.

“We have been doing that with different warhead fills and putting a composite body on the weapon and delivering it with a laser,” Andersen says. “We find the energy dissipates in single-digit feet instead of going out to 40-50 ft.”

Those small, air-launched weapons of 250-lb. or less also would allow an increase in the number of bombs that future manned or unmanned aircraft could drop in a single mission. Or it could carry the same number of bombs, but the decrease in payload weight would allow unmanned aircraft to fly higher, faster and farther.

“We’re working on the capabilities document for the follow-on to the MQ-9 [Reaper], Goldfein says. “If you line up the master schedules, it’s a capability that is delivered in 2020. You’ll hear modularity, sustainability, affordability, and it will be built with the idea of operations in civil air space in mind with see and avoid, for example. It will be much more suited for bad weather, operate in the mid-altitudes around 20,000 to 30,000 ft. It could be weaponized and carry sensors and it would have to be monitored. Stealth will be an affordability issue. It will probably be difficult.”

Recent low-intensity conflicts give some clues how advanced unmanned aircraft may be used in large-scale future wars.

ACC officials learned a lot from Israel’s current defensive preparations and Russia’s attack on Georgia. Some lessons are exotic and some are doing the basics well, they say. Georgia had a primitive, un-integrated air defense network. But the Russians didn’t develop an electronic order of battle and flew into battle un-briefed on Georgian air defense. Another piece of data about future tactics is Israel’s planning for their communications and military networks to be disabled by electronic attack in future conflicts.

That’s a lesson the American are taking to heart.

“We also are making sure that we can still fight with our networks degraded,” says Maj. Gen. Tom Andersen, ACC’s director of requirements. “If I lose my connectivity to locations in the [combat area], how do I continue to deliver [critical information]? There are a couple of major projects that commanders are focused on. One that reported out at the four-star and service secretary level was the ability to operate in denied environments. That includes the survival or quick reconstruction of datalinks, secure and insecure communications including radars, long-distance transmission, sharing of information, the ability to tie into command and control systems and the coordination of real time decision-making and the ability to adjust to dynamic targets. That’s what we’re training toward.”

[buglerbilly]

USAF Mulls Retiring Old C-5s, Backs C-130 AMP

Apr 12, 2010

By Amy Butler

The U.S. Air Force is planning to trim its buy of C-5 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) kits made by Lockheed Martin Aeronautics by 20 aircraft, indicating the service is likely to retire 20 aircraft if approved by Congress.

The Pentagon’s April 2 Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) is the first public acknowledgment of the reduction in C-5 AMP numbers (Aerospace DAILY, April 5).

The Air Force had sought to retire some of its oldest C-5s to save money for maintenance.

And an excess of C-17s provided by Congress, against the desires of the Air Force, will allow for the retirements without affecting the readiness of the operational fleet.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said March 30 that the long-awaited Mobility Capabilities Requirements Study (MCRS) found that the number of strategic airlifters needed is in the low 300s.

The Air Force is buying 223 C-17s. Schwartz indicated in March that the service could begin retiring 17 C-5s in Fiscal 2011.

Originally, all 112 C-5s were slated to receive the AMP, with only the Bs, one C and an A undergoing the re-engining program for now. It is possible more re-engining kits could be added to the 52 now planned to support the Air Force’s need to boost reliability of the entire fleet.

Schwartz also said that 19 of the oldest C-130 Hs also should be retired.

Also in the April 2 SAR, the Pentagon notes that the C-130 AMP program is finally being properly funded, driving the overall price up 17.9%. The new price is $6.35 billion for 220 kits.

This estimate now includes the pricing for depot installations, spares and training systems.

Boeing had designed the AMP kit, and the Air Force has completed testing. However, lukewarm support from the Air Force prompted a delay in the decision to proceed with producing the kits.

The SAR acknowledges a one-year delay in production. The Air Force had plans to conduct a competition to select a contractor to build and install the kits. It is unclear if that plan has changed.

[buglerbilly]

Military Tech, Organizations Will Merge

Apr 13, 2010



By David A. Fulghum

Next-generation aircraft and sensors are being planned that combine surveillance, intelligence gathering, tactical cyber and other electronic attack and directed energy. For example, a burst of high-power microwaves could leave a person unharmed but kill his mobile phone.

“There are three trends that are bringing about what I call the ‘information in war revolution,’” says Lt. Gen. David Deptula, the Air Force’s first deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR). “The first is the ability to rapidly compress and decompress data due to advancing computing speed; the second is the ability to transmit this data using very clever means — like transmitting only the parts of a video or radar picture that have changed — and then finally the ability we have now to bring all these technologies onto one platform, like we do with our Remotely Piloted Aircraft and will do on our future manned aircraft.”

Those advances in technology are increasing the speed of information and changing the way the Pentagon designs aircraft, its organizations, and even the military’s long-developed cultural habits of collecting data, analyzing it, and then distributing the information to those who need it.

“In the past we had a specific aircraft for collecting data, then a separate organization for analyzing it, and then another organization and system for distributing it,” Deptula says. “And this was at all levels of operations.

With today’s technology we can do all of that from one aircraft — near real time and at the speed of light — from across the globe. Today the trends are blurring traditional lines to the point where we are now able to integrate a sensor-processor-distributor-kinetic-non-kinetic shooter-penetrator all on one aircraft — or perhaps even more attractive — distributed on a set of multiple aircraft in a ‘fractionated’ system. That is a concept that may allow us to achieve greater degrees of survivability in the face of advanced threat systems.”

In short, the traditional fighter, bomber and ISR aircraft will disappear, or at least no longer denote the mission. This is not a multirole, he cautions, but instead “rather a more advanced ‘integrated mission composable’ approach.”

However, advanced jamming tools and techniques may render relying on linking separate capabilities on separate aircraft more and more problematic, therefore integration of multiple function attributes on single aircraft could actually become more attractive.

Cyberwarfare also is part of ISR’s future. “A big part of the job in exploiting operations in cyberspace entails computer network exploitation,” Deptula says. “Wrapped up in the mission set of 24th Air Force is the exploitation piece, and the Air Force ISR Agency capabilities are vital to that task.

Within a few weeks of the stand up of 24th Air Force [the cyber-attack force], we established an ISR group of about 400 people in direct support of that command’s cyber-activities. Today it is known as the 770th Provisional ISR Group, and in June it will become the 659th ISR group, located at Fort Meade, Md. [the home of the National Security Agency].”

Photo: Boeing

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Upgraded F-15Cs to protect F-22s

Posted by David A. Fulghum at 4/14/2010 9:07 AM CDT

F-22 stealth fighter production is capped, so USAF officials are upgrading their best F-15C with advanced, long-range radars to beef up the air dominance force.

Because of the larger size of the F-15s radar and the aircraft’s greater flight endurance, they also will serve as “stand-in” electronic warfare jamming and attack aircraft as part of the Air Force’s composite air dominance force that also includes stealthy F-22s stationed at Langley Air Force Base, Va.

Each fighter type will shoulder 50% of the air dominance mission now that the F-22 force has been capped at 187 aircraft. The upgraded F-15Cs will carry the larger APG-63(V)3 active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar. The radar's long range and small target detection capability will allow F-22s to operate in electronic silence with their low observability uncompromised by electronic emissions.

The first F-15C modified with the Raytheon radar was declared operational with the Florida Air National Guard’s 125th Fighter Wing last week.

“Our objective is to fly in front [of any strike force] with the F-22s, and have the persistence [because of larger fuel loads] to stay there while the [stealthy fighters] are conducting their LO attack,” says Maj. Todd Giggy, the wing’s chief of weapons and tactics. Giggy was formerly with the chief of weapons and tactics for the 1st Air Dominance Wing at Langley. “That persistence is something we can add that no one else can in the air dominance world.”

The Florida, Louisiana and Oregon ANG will field the first 48 V3 radar-equipped F-15Cs. Massachusetts and Montana ANG units will follow so that the East, West and Gulf coasts have a cruise missile defense capability.

“We’re embracing an air-launched concept for theater ballistic missile defense as a deterrent and as a tactical capability to protect our forces in theater and for homeland defense,” Giggy says.

One of the missiles in consideration for the theater ballistic missile mission is Raytheon’s NCADE variant of the AIM-120 AMRAAM.

“We’re talking to the ANG about a demonstration of an air-launched, hit-to-kill system, says Ramon Estrada, Raytheon’s F-15 AESA program manager. “It takes the AMRAAM body and extends the range to support a ballistic missile mission.” The AIM-120C-6 and AIM-120D AMRAAM models were optimized in part to attack small-signature cruise missiles.

The Air Force will deliver up to six AESA radars this summer for installation on F-15Cs at the Weapons School and 442 Sgdn. at Nellis AFB, Nev. The fleet will eventually grow to 176 Golden Eagles that are slated to serve until 2030.

The F-15Cs also will provide electronic jamming and attack capability, self-protect the force against enemy missiles and aircraft, shoot their beyond visual range missiles to supplement limited numbers carried by the F-22s and use the radar to create situational awareness for everyone else.

“Weapons effects are the priority, and we are carrying so few weapons that BVR fighting is going to be distributed among all the platforms out there,” Giggy says. “So we distribute the targets and weapons management.”

The F-15C’s electronic surveillance capability also can identify and precisely locate electronic emitters – communications and radars in the air and on the ground – to direct the attacks of other aircraft carrying conventional missiles or non-kinetic, electronic or cyber weapons. Examples of the latter are Raytheon’s Miniature Air Launched Decoy – Jammer (Mald-J) and the CHAMP high power microwave (HPM) generator for cruise missiles being developed by the Air Force Research Laboratory at Kirtland AFB, N.M.

There are also more modifications to come, say aerospace industry officials.

“The simple answer is yes,” says Jim Means, Boeing’s director of proprietary programs for global strike systems. “We are looking in all the right places for the future and that includes the radar and modification to the [AESA] antenna.”

The APG-82(V)4 radar and a new radome planned for the Air Force’s fleet of about 220 F-15Es “we may retrofit to the F-15Cs,” Means says. “There’s also a new computer, a larger cockpit display and enhanced bandwidth datalinks that can send more data to other aircraft faster.”

“Our goal is to break the [enemy’s] kill chain,” Giggy says. “The AESA is a critical component. We can’t stand-in against the current threats unless we can build that [electronic and radar] picture of the battlefield. The V3 allows us to pick and chose where we can go to deliver the [weapons’] effect. And some of those EW and non-kinetic warfare effects are very important.”

But they are expected to be only a few of the upgrades considered through the end of the F-15C’s operational life in 2030.

“With the capability gap that the Air Force is trying to address through the air dominance category with the F-15C, we looked at a lot technologies,” says Robert Martin, a Boeing business development official for the F-15 program.” The Air Force is going to look across platforms for effects to enhance warfighter capability.”

Technologies already in consideration include advanced processing, electronic warfare, multi-spectral sensors, high volume, low probability of intercept datalinks and interoperability with unmanned platforms, he says.

[buglerbilly]

ACC Looks At Possibilities For Future Weapons

Apr 30, 2010



By David A. Fulghum
Langley AFB, Va.

Early planning for improved fifth- and new sixth-generation aircraft indicates they could be designed with wide-area optical and electronic surveillance and nonexplosive weapons, and offer an intricate analysis of the enemy networks that might affect them.

Also part of the formula will be communications—including command and control—that can function even when under network attack.

Fifth-generation aircraft combine stealth and supersonic cruise speeds. The follow-on sixth generation will likely include optionally manned, stealthy, non-supersonic designs with advanced electronic attack payloads involved in ISR and clandestine transport missions.

“We’ve stood up a sixth-generation fighter office here, and we’re starting to figure out what those attributes should be,” says USAF Maj. Gen. Tom Andersen, Air Combat Command’s director of requirements. “Survivability will be huge, so how do you do that—with speed, stealth or some combination? Affordability is critical because $500 million per air vehicle doesn’t do much good [in a tough budget environment]. If we start right now, 2030 is about the time you get a sixth-gen fighter on the line. I think it will have to be capable of being [optionally] manned. The cost margin between manned and unmanned is now only about a 3-5% delta. We have to be prepared to go either way.”

These aircraft will need to be linked so they always know where they are in reference to one another and to any enemy threat all the time. The advanced architecture for connectivity is called the Joint Aerial Layered Network (JLAN). It creates a mosaic for the battlefield with space, airborne and surface layers. And within those layers, the denied and anti-access areas are detailed along with where everybody else can operate. “We have to concentrate on low probability of intercept or detection [LPI/LPD] type wave forms. Then we have to get [those messages] out of that environment so they can help the follow-on forces and support jammers like the nonstealthy Growler. That’s going to be a challenge.”

The equipment on these new aircraft designs will also be innovative. It will, for example, exploit new segments of the electromagnetic spectrum. Also increasingly important will be a translator that transforms an LPI signal to a waveform that can be widely distributed by Link 16. That would avoid compromising stealth and also generate digital information that everyone can use immediately.

Electronic attack, network invasion and generating high-power microwave (HPM) pulses as weapons will also be part of the formula.

“We’re working the Champ [counter-electronics HPM *advanced missile project] demonstration,” which is anHPM device in a cruise missile at Kirtland AFB, N.M., says USAF Brig. Gen. Dave Goldfein, ACC’s director of air and space operations. “We’re probably about three years from where we will have to transition it from the [joint demonstration program].”

ACC officials contend that HPM and laser research is finally at a crucial point. After 20 years of promises, the laboratories and industry are miniaturizing and weaponizing those technologies, and even more progress is anticipated. The U.S. Marines, for example, plan to introduce truck-mounted, base-defense HPM into operations in Afghanistan.

There are also hints about sixth-generation unmanned aircraft.

“We’re looking at our next-generation RPAs [remotely piloted aircraft] more as standard trucks that would be modular and able to be configured to support several possible missions,” says Andersen. “Generally, we’re likely to see much less onboard processing. Also key will be machine-to-machine communications and automated decision-making aids so that communications can be limited to decision-quality data. It also will help us with the manpower-intensive back end [of RPA operations] if people can limit or automate some of the activity that eats up those man-hours.”

Upgrades to the active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radars can turn them into fighter-size directed-energy weapons.

“Build it and we will come,” says Andersen. “What comes first, the investment from the services to weaponize something or the proof that the technology is ready for operational use? In today’s fiscal environment, we need to see some evidence before we can invest.

“An issue with most directed-energy concepts is that usually you can’t see the [HPM] weapon’s point of impact or the effect on the target,” he says. “So how do you boresight that weapon and produce a known effect? Is that effect temporary or permanent? What does the strike planner want and what can he trust? How do you treat it like a real weapon so that the joint force commander knows the capability it will deliver?”

AESA radars also may be the core of a new jammer and self-protection suite similar to the Navy’s Next-Generation Jammer program.

“There is no next-generation jammer, per se, for us,” says Goldfein. “There are capabilities that we’re looking for, but there’s no program of record. I don’t think we’ve scratched the surface on AESA. We haven’t got it on the F-35 yet so that we can wring it out, but I think it is going to have tremendous capability for both electronic attack and protection.”

The capability allows aircrews to find, avoid and neutralize enemy emitters on the battlefield. RPAs are also certain to be part of the offensive mix, ACC officials say. Rather than working toward a single, elegant but expensive solution, they are looking for multiple ways of attacking a foe electronically.

Whether the Air Force can successfully turn its fifth- and sixth-generation aircraft into a combination ISR, electronic attack, strike and AWACS aircraft is also an issue of perspective.

“The first day of Desert Storm [Jan. 16, 1991], I rolled in an F-16 with dumb bombs,” says Goldfein. “Ten years later I was rolling into Kosovo with laser-guided bombs with all kinds of data coming into the cockpit. Now we’re far more capable than we were then.”

Nevertheless, some of the most pressing needs for operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Middle East and Southwest Asia are pretty prosaic.

A tour in theater for the F-22 was more about gathering data on operating in a dry, high-temperature, fine-sand situation for an extended period and less about functioning in a different electromagnetic environment.

Ironically, the big three issues in the Middle East are maintainability, supportability and commonality. These lessons from the F-22 are already being rolled into the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

“We have more panels for maintenance access that you don’t have in the F-22,” says Goldfein. “You don’t have to refinish the [low-observable] surface. The radar is much more capable. And the architecture is much more versatile for accepting upgrades.”

The next generation of aircraft will follow an incremental approach.

“It will be logical, sustainable and affordable,” says Goldfein. “Long-range strike, sixth-generation fighter and follow-ons to the MC-12 and MQ-1/9 will have evolutionary but multiple capabilities, such as ISR and electronic attack and protection, and strike.”

However, weaponry and sensors for the current Afghan conflict are not all esoteric.

“The requests I have been getting are in the arena of limited-effect kinetic weapons that are all-weather, day/night, high precision and low collateral damage,” says Goldfein.

Specifically, troops want bombs that create grenade-size explosions without fragmentation that can make the best use of intelligence by destroying a very small area—perhaps one room in a house.

“We have been doing that with different warhead fills and putting a composite body on the weapon and delivering it with a laser,” says Andersen. “We find that the energy dissipates in single-digit feet instead of going out to 40-50 ft.”

Those small, air-launched weapons of 250 lb. or less also would allow an increase in the number of bombs that an aircraft can drop. Or it could carry the same number of bombs, but the decrease in payload weight would allow unmanned aircraft to fly higher, faster and farther.

“We’re working on the capabilities document for the follow-on to the MQ-9 [Reaper],” says Goldfein. “If you line up the master schedules, it’s a capability that is delivered in 2020. You’ll hear modularity, sustainability, affordability, and it will be built with the idea of operations in civil airspace with see-and-avoid, for example. It will be much more suited for bad weather and operate in the mid-altitudes around 20,000-30,000 ft. It could be weaponized and carry sensors, and it would have to be monitored. Stealth will be an affordability issue. It will probably be difficult.”

But recent low-intensity conflicts offer clues about how advanced unmanned aircraft may be used in large-scale future wars.

ACC officials learned a lot from Israel’s attack on Syria in 2007 and Russia’s attack on Georgia in 2008. Some of it was exotic and some of it was basic EW blocking and tackling, they say. Georgia had an unintegrated air defense network. But the Russians did not develop an electronic order of battle and flew unbriefed into Georgian air defense. Another piece of evidence is that Israel is planning for its communications and military networks to be disabled by electronic attack.

“We also are making sure that we can still fight with our networks degraded,” Andersen says. “If I lose my connectivity to locations in the [combat area], how do I continue to deliver [critical information]? There are a couple of major projects that commanders are focused on. One that reported out at the four-star and service-secretary level was the ability to operate in denied environments. That includes the survival or quick reconstruction of data links and secure or insecure communications. Other priorities are the ability to tie into command-and-control systems, the coordination of real-time decision-making and the ability to adjust to dynamic targets.”

Photo: General Atomics

[buglerbilly]

AF Panel Likens DOD Acquisition to Contact Sport

(Source: U.S Air Force; issued April 30, 2010)

(Scroll down to see the Editor’s note in the second item below)

DAYTON, Ohio --- The Defense Department's journey to recapture acquisition excellence took a big step forward during two days of discussions and workforce training held at Sinclair Community College here April 20 and 21.

That was the assessment made by several senior leaders at the DOD Acquisition Insight Conference, at which more than 700 military, civilian and contractor acquisition professionals and defense industry partners met.

Sponsored by Defense Acquisition University - Midwest Region, the conference focused principally on providing acquisition experts from nearby Wright-Patterson Air Force Base with a forum to exchange ideas and discuss how to best implement the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009.

"In my mind, it's about continuous process improvement," said Lt. Gen. Tom Owen, commander of the Aeronautical Systems Center and the Air Force's program executive officer, or PEO, responsible for buying and modernizing aircraft systems. "We know that what we do is vitally important, so we should work hard to improve our processes."

General Owen's boss, Gen. Donald Hoffman, commander of Air Force Materiel Command, said it's important for weapon system program managers to think carefully about program scope. They need to be willing to say no when nice-to-have, emerging weapon systems requirements are proposed late in the game because these ideas lead to cost overruns and delivery delays.

General Hoffman used the word "pugnacity" to describe the attitude he wants to see in program managers. They must be hard-nosed enough to ensure well-intentioned but disruptive ideas don't derail the process. Program managers must defend the boundaries of their program and aggressively execute the agreed plan with their industrial partners or schedule delays and cost increases will creep in.

Virtually everyone acknowledged that years of downsizing and outsourcing left the acquisition workforce out of balance and ill-equipped to deal with a concurrent significant increase in oversight, documentation requirements and dollar value of contracts written.

The government must stop the trend of hollowing out DOD's in-house technical capability and then attempting to compensate by adding burdensome oversight, said Dr. Ashton Carter, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics.

The DOD acquisition workforce improvement plan, currently in execution, includes a number of concurrent efforts to increase the size of the department's in-house acquisition workforce through recruitment of people into newly created positions and "in-sourcing" or conversion of contractors to government positions. General Hoffman said for his command, AFMC officials plan to in-source about 4,000 positions.

Enhancing skills of acquisition, technology and logistics workers through education and training and establishing a clear path for their professional development also are key components of the improvement plan. Rebuilding skills in the workforce which have atrophied, like those of budget estimators and system engineers, will take time, but the effort is necessary and worthwhile, senior panel experts said.

"It takes about 10 years to (develop) a good fighter pilot," said retired Gen. Lawrence Skantze, former commander of Air Force Systems Command, adding the same is true for a good acquisition professional.

Additionally, a soon-to-be announced major restructure of major AFMC acquisition centers was previewed. In part, it will increase the number of program executive officers to enable better senior officer-level focus on high-dollar, high-risk programs that warrant additional scrutiny.

General Owen, who currently serves as the PEO for aircraft systems, said that will mean five new PEOs at Aeronautical Systems Center, for a total of six. He will remain PEO for B-2 Spirit, C-17 Globemaster III and F-22 Raptor but will be joined by PEOs for Agile Combat Support; Fighters and Bombers; Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; KC-X; and Mobility.

Sue Payton, former assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, said across AFMC, the number of PEOs will go from five to 15.

Ms. Payton, General Hoffman and others extolled the value of solid systems engineering, as well as incentive-based contracting with industry to move to firm fixed-price contracts as early as feasible. Funding fewer programs at high confidence levels to enable low-risk development and production to proceed quickly at efficient economies of scale was universally preferred to stretching out weapons buys in tiny lots over many years. Competitive prototyping up front to reduce risk later was another lauded approach.

"The only leverage you have in Air Force acquisition is to say 'no,'" Ms. Payton said, noting that programs with prioritized, stable requirements and realistically funded for block upgrades are preferred to attempts to go from zero to hero in fielding the perfect weapon system straight out of the starting block.

"This is a contact sport," said Lt. Gen. Ted Bowlds, commander of the Electronic Systems Center at Hanscom AFB, Mass. It requires active leadership and personal contact, early and often, between acquirers, testers, sustainers and industry producers, he added.

Transparent, open communication between these communities and sharing detailed analyses using various information technology tools enhances trust and credibility, General Owen said.

Gary Bliss, the director of the Pentagon's Performance Assessment and Root Cause Analysis office, agreed, noting the one unifying theme he's learned in his reviews of acquisition programs that encountered serious problems was a need for "greater transparency of programs throughout the acquisition chain of command."

Mr. Bliss also said there is no substitute for knowledge of the complex series of rules and policies that drive acquisition decisions.

"Everyone in this room must understand (the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009)," he said to the conferees in attendance.

Despite its difficulties, when really tested, the acquisition community can perform with incredible agility, General Owen noted.

"Some of our most successful programs (came about from being) challenged with doing something really quickly," he said. The MC-12 Liberty is a notable ASC example, with an entire squadron of ISR aircraft being fielded in less than 10 months from concept to combat. (ends)

DOD Acquisition Leader Shares His Priorities

(Source: US Air Force; issued April 30, 2010)

DAYTON, Ohio --- More than 700 military, civilian and contractor acquisition professionals and defense industry partners discussed challenges they face during the Department of Defense Acquisition Insight Conference April 20 through 21 here.

The Pentagon's top acquisition official, Dr. Ashton Carter, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, was among the senior executives.

"Secretary (of Defense Robert) Gates is insistent that we do things differently," said Dr. Carter on the imperative to improve the way U.S. military weapons and systems are acquired and delivered. "There is no silver bullet here; It's not oversight. It's the practice."

The forum, hosted by Defense Acquisition University members, is one of the three largest DAU annual training events for military and civilian acquisition professionals.

Doctor Carter used real-world development challenges with DOD's largest acquisition program, the F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter, to illustrate what most urgently needs to be fixed.

The complex acquisition program represents the cornerstone of America's stealthy, multi-role fighter force for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. Many allied nations also plan to buy the F-35 and several are helping to share the cost to develop it.

Despite discipline in keeping F-35 requirements stable, a combination of unforeseen engineering changes and other factors went unacknowledged and virtually unmanaged for two years, resulting in a 30-month delay and $3 billion in additional program costs, according to one estimate.

"We should have better situational awareness and better early warning about the status of our programs," Doctor Carter said.

Once the F-35's problems finally surfaced, DOD and industry officials were able to collaborate and come up with a strategy to reduce the delay to just 13 months, Dr. Carter said.

(EDITOR’S NOTE: It is somewhat disingenuous of Carter to say that the F-35’s problems “went unacknowledged…for two years.” On the contrary, they were chronicled in excruciating detail by many trade publications, not least defense-aerospace.com, before and during this period. The solution to the acquisition problem that the Pentagon wants to fix may well rest, at least in part, in simply paying more attention to outside observers.)

Secretary Gates withheld certain award fees to the contractor and tied earning them back to meeting specific development and production goals and timelines, so taxpayers didn't bear the additional cost burden alone, Doctor Carter said.

While he underscored the importance of the industry-government partnership, Doctor Carter said a key lesson learned is less reliance on contractor estimates and "a need to strengthen the government's capability for independent technical judgment."

The government must stop the trend of hollowing out DOD's in-house technical capability and then attempting to compensate by adding burdensome oversight, regulation and documentation requirements, he said.

That's another reason why the acquisition workforce improvement plan is so vital, Doctor Carter said. After years of downsizing and outsourcing, the plan includes a number of concurrent efforts to increase the size of the department's in-house acquisition workforce by nearly 20,000 over the next five years through new recruitment and conversion of some contractor functions to government positions.

Enhancing workforce skills through education and training are also key components, with a focus on systems engineering as one example, he added.

Another strategy Doctor Carter said officials can employ to help wrestle in program development costs is to identify when firm fixed-price contracts are appropriate, rather than cost plus award fee contracts.

Firm fixed-price contracts should be used when they make sense to the warfighter and the taxpayer, he said. The intent is to reduce and share technical and business risk.

Ultimately, improving acquisition performance should depend on "quality people making quality decisions, rather than a ponderous process and oversight," Doctor Carter said.

Delivering capabilities on time and on cost benefits both U.S. warfighters and taxpayers, Doctor Carter said.

"The top priority, the No. 1 priority, is to support the troops."

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

USAF To Reduce Reliance On UCAs

May 12, 2010

By Amy Butler

Obviously I'm a member of the "ancien(t) regime"...........I didn't even know "undefinitized" was a real word with a real meaning beyond USAF quatsch-sprach ("rubbish speak" to you)..............

WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB, Ohio — U.S. Air Force officials are working to reduce the number of undefinitized contract actions (UCAs) used by the service to procure weapon systems as a result of some criticism that this procurement tool has been used too often.

UCAs are a tool used by procurement officers to get a company on contract for specific tasks while saving detailed negotiations until later. They are typically considered appropriate for use in areas such as urgent needs for commanders fighting a war. For example, UCAs were used to quickly get contractors working on the MC-12W Project Liberty aircraft, which are providing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance to commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan. Acquisition officials also sometimes turn to them as an option if a foreign customer is eager to get on contract, but negotiations take longer than planned.

However, after high-profile procurement foul-ups such as KC-X, the Air Force is bound to draw criticism if it does not follow acquisition regulations closely.

Defense acquisition regulations require that a service has 180 days to “definitize” a contract, which means to iron out all of the details and get a signed deal.

This is an area where the Air Force has fallen short, according to some critics in government. During an April 23 speech, David Van Buren, the service’s acting top procurement official, also acknowledged that the number of UCAs open for Air Force contracts is a “major problem” that raised eyebrows in Congress.

“Unfortunately, we have allowed UCAs to just be used more commonly than they should,” said Aeronautical Systems Center Commander Lt. Gen. Thomas Owen during a May 7 interview with AVIATION WEEK. “In our zeal to get product developed and delivered, that led to using UCAs more often than we should.” Owen says his command is reducing the number of UCAs.

As of April 2010, the ASC had 57 undefinitized UCAs; that number is projected to dwindle to zero by July 2011, with fewer projected new UCAs to be opened.

Credit: USAF

[buglerbilly]

U.S. Lawmakers Push for Additional F/A-18s, C-17s

By JOHN REED

Published: 18 May 2010 16:51

Fresh on the heels of the U.S. Navy's move to buy 124 new F/A-18 Super Hornets and E/A-18G Growlers, Missouri lawmakers on May 18 announced a renewed push for the Pentagon to purchase additional Super Hornets and C-17 Globemaster III cargo haulers.

Calling last week's news of the Super Hornet buy "an important first step," but just a first step in addressing the sea service's looming fighter gap, Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo., and fellow Missouri lawmakers held a news conference on Capitol Hill to announce they will urge the Pentagon to buy additional fighters using savings garnered from the multiyear Super Hornet buy.

Bond was joined by Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who added that she will insist the Navy use the nearly half a billion dollars in savings from the multiyear buy to "go right back into" buying more Super Hornets to address the Navy's fighter gap.

The pending Super Hornet deal, unveiled May 14, is worth about $70 million per airplane, according to Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo. Akin and McCaskill called out the Navy for issuing "perplexing" estimates regarding the size of the fighter gap, which have ranged from 243 jets to the current estimate of 100.

McCaskill also said that she is trying to get enough votes in the Senate to allow the Air Force to retire its 50 oldest C-5A Galaxys and purchase additional C-17s in the 2011 defense authorization bill, which the Senate is expected to mark up on May 25.

Retiring the C-5As would free up ramp space for the C-17s without building a fleet of strategic airlifters larger than the 317 the Air Force says it needs, according to the Missouri democrat. The House favors such a move, according to Akin, although McCaskill said garnering the votes in the Senate will be a challenge.

[buglerbilly]

Mistakes become career-enders during drawdown

By Michelle Tan - Staff writer

Posted : Sunday May 23, 2010 9:41:00 EDT

Nearly every airman has forgotten to salute, missed a meeting, showed up for work late or flubbed a test.

By and large, those moments strike fear in airmen’s hearts — and for good reason.

A little thing, or a seemingly little thing, can kill a career as much as a big thing. You don’t have to commit a crime to get kicked out of the service. You can be handed your walking papers for simply being in an overmanned career field or flunking the PT test.

And in these times when the Air Force is looking to get rid of 6,000 active-duty airmen, it doesn’t hurt to know what can trip you up — innocuous or not.

The list of potential pitfalls comes mostly from the rank and file. The Air Force doesn’t keep an official list of reasons why airmen separate — either voluntarily or involuntarily, a spokeswoman told Air Force Times.

“Currently we have no means to track the different, varied separation reasons,” Elizabeth Gosselin wrote in an e-mail.

The number of airmen who left the service in fiscal 2009 totaled 2,246, up from 2,234 in fiscal 2008. The number for the first seven months of fiscal 2010 is 1,145.

A tough civilian job market triggered the drawdown, announced in early April by Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz. High unemployment plus job security equals high retention. Now, the Air Force is faced with doing its own layoffs.

Schwartz and his force management advisers figure a three-pronged plan — the active-duty cuts along with the delayed commissioning of hundreds of ROTC cadets and severely curtailed recruitment goals — will bring the service back to its congressionally mandated end strength of 332,200. The number right now is about 335,500 and was projected to hit 336,500 by Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year, if the Air Force didn’t act.

To implement the cuts, the service is using both the carrot and the stick. Some airmen are eligible for incentives — accelerated retirements, voluntary separation pay, fewer years in grade and shortened service commitments, for example. Others are getting the boot — for being denied or declining re-enlistment, poor grades in technical school or being passed over for promotion.

Crime, cross-train and PT

Even if you don’t think you’re vulnerable because of the drawdown, your fellow airmen warn that you should know how to protect your future anyway.

One big way to stay in is to stay out of trouble — criminal trouble.

Assigned to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, Tech. Sgt. Christina Parsons has seen a lot of airmen get kicked out because they broke the law: smoking pot, viewing pornography — not only at work but at home — writing bad checks, misusing a government travel card, sexual misconduct, assault.

“These are just to name a few,” wrote Parsons, one of three dozen airmen and retirees who responded to a call-out from Air Force Times. “And although most think that there is no way that they will be found out, remember, someone is always watching and/or listening. There is never anywhere to hide.”

An Air Force legal expert backed up Parsons’ contention about crime being bad for careers: A drug conviction, for example, means discharge.

“Most of our courts-martial are drug offenses, marijuana, dereliction of duty, making false statements, disobeying orders, and everything you can imagine, to sexual assault and the occasional murder,” said Col. Ken Theurer, chief of the military justice division in the Air Force Legal Operations Agency.

“We expect our airmen to live up to the Air Force core values at all times,” he said.

Saving your career can be as easy as being open to switching Air Force Specialty Codes.

“Being in an overmanned career field coupled with an unwillingness to cross-train can be a career-ender,” Maj. Juan Doan of the Georgia Air National Guard told Air Force Times. “With the Air Force ranks swelling due to the economy, the Air Force may have to push you out if you are unwilling to move into a position of need.”

Keeping fit is an easy way to make sure you stay in. Involuntary separation is automatic if you get four unsatisfactory fitness assessment scores in a 24-month period or remain in an unsatisfactory fitness category for 12 continuous months.

“The No. 1 career-ender? No question about it, the scarlet letter ‘F’ as in consistent fitness test failure,” Capt. John Parrish wrote. “We’re not a one-mistake Air Force unless you mistakenly under-prioritize your fitness.”

Parrish, an enlisted airman for 10 years before being commissioned eight years ago, never saw or heard of anyone being separated for “gross occupational incompetence (unfortunately) but quite a few due to the old ‘fat boy’ program and the misguided bike test. In other words, historically in the Air Force, you can be a borderline moron in your AFSC and make 20 years, but being a slow runner makes you a dirt bag. That applies to officers and enlisted alike.”

Lies, washouts and rusty skills

Capt. Michael Fontana sent up a red flare about false allegations. He speaks from experience, accused — and eventually acquitted — of giving lethal doses of painkillers to three terminally ill patients at Wilford Hall Medical Center at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas.

“My personal opinion is victims of false accusations and failures of the chain of command are career-enders,” wrote Fontana, who had faced three counts of murder. “I am living proof of such an event. I am trying to remain strong after dealing with this situation, which is now over, but reintegration back into patient care has been an enormous obstacle.”

In the explosive ordnance disposal community, what’s needed to hold on to your job depends on whether the country is at war or not, according to Tech. Sgt. John McCoy. On the battlefield, endangering a fellow team member or killing a non-combatant almost guarantees you’ll be fired as soon as you go back home. During peacetime, you’ll be shown the door if you don’t keep up your skills.

Francis Crotty said he saw his career come to a screeching halt when he had to leave navigator school for medical reasons, though he didn’t realize it at the time. He entered another career field, acquisitions, and retired as a major.

“Washing out of a school, may it be the military member’s choice or not, puts a permanent mark against them forever,” Crotty wrote. “The lesson to be learned is to be successful at everything you undertake, period.”

As a training manager, Master Sgt. Lyndell Massey said he has seen commanders target airmen who have failed a career development course twice — especially during a drawdown.

“Although the commander has multiple options [90-day review period, CDC waiver and retraining], oftentimes the struggling young airman is simply shown the door with minimal benefits and options.”

Massey said he also has seen airmen punished for failing to progress in training or for receiving one too many letters of counseling for decreased performance when dealing with personal or family issues.

“The Air Force says people are their number one resource,” Massey wrote. “If this is true, why are our fellow Air Force brothers and sisters always the first thing on the chopping block to save money?”

[buglerbilly]

Air Force should not relegate F-15 Eagles to boneyard

By Robert F. Dorr - Special to Air Force Times

The F-15 Eagle could be the only air-to-air fighter in history that has never been beaten in battle.

The score is 104-0, according to the Eagle’s manufacturer. The 104 is the number of enemy planes downed by F-15s, and the zero is the number of F-15s lost in air-to-air combat. The total includes aerial victories by American, Israeli and Saudi pilots.

More than 100 Eagles — 112 — are headed to the boneyard, nearly half of 259 perfectly good aircraft that Defense Secretary Robert Gates wants to retire from service. The rest of the 500-plus planes in the fleet will be upgraded, but those being retired will not be replaced.

Besides sidelining F-15s, the Air Force is consolidating Eagle training at one location — Kingsley Field in Oregon. The 325th Fighter Wing at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., graduated its final five student pilots in May and is saying goodbye to its 48 Eagles. All should be in the boneyard by Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.

While there’s no doubt that the Oregon Air National Guard’s 173rd Fighter Wing will do a fine job with the F-15 training, it’s sad to see the mission leave Tyndall. In 22 years, the 325th taught 3,900 pilots well.

An instructor at Tyndall likened the F-15 drawdown to “retiring the undefeated New England Patriots.”

Once, there appeared to be a reason for putting the F-15 out to pasture: An Air National Guard pilot had to eject from an Eagle during a routine training mission Nov. 2, 2007, when it broke apart over Missouri. Parts of the plane struck Maj. Stephen Stilwell, hurting him seriously enough that he can no longer fly for the Guard or his private employer, Southwest Airlines. Stilwell brought a personal injury lawsuit against Boeing and declined to be interviewed.

Stilwell’s bailout prompted initial fears of a fleetwide structural problem caused by aging of the F-15, fears that experts now deem unfounded.

Today, F-15s showing the least structural wear and tear are having their lives extended from 8,000 to 16,000 flying hours by upgrades. Despite being 25 years old, many Eagles have just 4,000 or 5,000 hours, not exorbitant flight time for a jet fighter.

Because of the Air Force’s puny F-22 Raptor buy (187 aircraft), the Eagle remains its primary air-to-air fighter. And the F-15 probably keep the honor even when the F-35 Lightning II finally makes it into the air, some airmen theorize. “The F-35 pilots need to accomplish many tasks, and we need a single-mission airplane for the air-to-air role,” as one Eagle pilot put it.

There are lawmakers who want to halt the retirement of the Eagles and are going to debate Gates’ decision come fall. Until Congress has its say, though, the Air Force should halt the “iron flow,” as airmen call it.

Retiring F-15s now is certainly premature because of the resistance on Capitol Hill, and it will ultimately prove unwise because it weakens the nation’s defenses. Ë

———

Robert F. Dorr, an Air Force veteran, is co-author of “Hell Hawks,” a history of a U.S. fighter group in World War II. His e-mail address is robert.f.dorr@cox.net.

[buglerbilly]

B-1B Lancer Fleet To the Boneyard?



Back to the Title 10 side of the house for a moment; the Air Force Council meets today to consider further cuts in aircraft to meet aggressive savings targets laid out by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. One option on the table: early retirement of all 66 B-1B Lancer bombers (the last delivery of which came back in 1988).

Force structure cuts might also extend to the air arm’s much cherished but currently under-utilized fighter force. The service already plans to early retire 250 fighters this year, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said last month; gone are 112 F-15s, 134 F-16s, and 3 A-10s.

Some of the fighter wings, mainly A-10, are being chopped altogether, while others are transitioning from legacy F-15s to upgraded F-15s or to the fifth-generation F-22 and other wings are prepping to receive the F-35 at some uncertain future date.

“By accepting some short-term risk, we can convert our inventory of legacy fighters and F-22 (Raptors) into a smaller, more flexible and lethal bridge to fifth-generation fighters like the F-35 (Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter),” Donley said.

While short-range tactical fighters (and potentially bombers) are being cut, the Air Force is adding more MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper drones and more analysts to scrutinize the massive amounts of imagery they generate.

– Greg Grant

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2010/06/24/b-1b-lancer-fleet-to-the-boneyard/#ixzz0royeu5HD
Defense.org

[buglerbilly]

DATE:24/06/10

SOURCE:Flightglobal.com

Boeing outlines C-130H and KC-10 cockpit upgrades

By Stephen Trimble

Boeing will upgrade cockpits for US Air Force C-130Hs and KC-10 tankers under separate deals announced on 24 June.

The USAF has cleared Boeing to launch low-rate initial production (LRIP) for the C-130 avionics modernization programme (AMP). Boeing will deliver five of 20 kits ordered by the USAF during the first lot of LRIP, with the balance produced by the Warner Robbins Air Logistics Centre and also by an unnamed competitor.

Boeing developed the AMP kit under a $1.4 billion development programme awarded in 2000 that endured cost overruns and schedule delays until a final restructuring in 2007.

Last year, the USAF attempted to terminate the programme, citing lack of funding. But the service relented under pressure from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Congress.

“I’m very confident that the air force will continue with the C-130 AMP,” says Mike Harris, Boeing vice president of C-130 AMP. “They never said they didn’t need it. They just didn’t have the money.”

The USAF decided in 2007 to qualify alternate sources to build and install about 198 AMP kits developed by Boeing under the original contract. Boeing’s goal is to reduce the price of AMP kit production from $14 million today to $7 million by the 69th aircraft, Harris says.

Meanwhile, Boeing also has received a $216 million contract to upgrade the 59-aircraft KC-10 fleet with a new communication, navigation, surveillance and air traffic management (CNS/ATM) system.

The five-year contract will allow the fleet to operate in civil airspace after 2015, as new US FAA and ICAO standards take effect, Boeing says.

[buglerbilly]

A report I nearly missed...........forgot about it...........

Previewing T-X: The biggest USAF contract nobody is talking about

By Stephen Trimble on June 21, 2010 12:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (16) | TrackBacks (0) |ShareThis



[As promised, here's the link: US Air Force, industry prepare for T-38 replacement)

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/06/22/343393/us-air-force-industry-prepare-for-t-38-replacement.html

I'm amazed that the unfolding T-X contract battle, which I'm previewing in this week's magazine (I'll add the link after the story is posted online), isn't one of the biggest news stories in military aviation today.

It's a story that has it all. Controversy? Three largely foreign aircraft in competition with potential American rivals. Size? Projected initial orders range from 350 to 500 aircraft, with follow-on potential up to 1,000. Emotion? Replace the US Air Force's venerable Northrop T-38 Talon, the advanced jet trainer that has primed three generations of fighter and bomber pilots for combat.

And it's a story that's moving very fast. Until a few years ago, the USAF had delayed plans for a T-38 replacement past 2020. A fatal crash in 2008 caused by an over-fatigued aileron helped to change the plan. The in-service date was accelerated to 2017. Since then, the USAF has released two fairly explicit requests for information to industry, detailing what the service thinks it needs.

But there is one thing holding this story back, and it's a 'biggie'. So far, the USAF hasn't put any real funding into the budget for T-X, despite plans to award a full-scale development contract before 2013. Industry expects that oversight to be cleared up in the Fiscal 2012 budget request that will be released in early February.

The USAF will not lack for options. Three off the shelf options exist to replace the T-38: AleniaAermacchi M346 Master, BAE Systems Hawk 128 and Korea Aerospace Industries/Lockheed Martin T-50 Golden Eagle. The catch: All of them are primairly designed and built overseas, although final assembly of course would shift to the US for the T-X contract winner.

But the USAF doesn't have to settle for off the shelf. It's possible that Boeing and perhaps Northrop Grumman could propose an alternative route: design a "purpose-built" -- and, more importantly, "all-American" -- advanced jet trainer.

That option may please a faction of parochial lawmakers, but it will add at least $3 to $5 billion to the program price tag. Given that buying new trainers rank among the lowest of any air force's spending priorities, that may be asking a lot.

One more option still exists, and it's perhaps Northrop's favorite strategy. Rather than buy an all-new aircraft, simply launch a "super-SLEP" (service life extension program) on the T-38 fleet.

[McDethWivFries]

B-1B Lancer Fleet To the Boneyard?


...
Some of the fighter wings, mainly A-10, are being chopped altogether, while others are transitioning from legacy F-15s to upgraded F-15s or to the fifth-generation F-22 and other wings are prepping to receive the F-35 at some uncertain future date.


BOOOOOooooo, two of my alltime favs, the B1 & A10, be sad to see them go

[buglerbilly]

The service already plans to early retire 250 fighters this year, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said last month; gone are 112 F-15s, 134 F-16s, and 3 A-10s.

3 X A-10's is insignificant to the point of almost being irrelevant..................the B-1B's have been on the chopping block previously and to be honest they are bloody expensive to keep in service..........

[buglerbilly]

A lot more expansive article on the USAF's T-X new trainer program................

DATE:22/06/10

SOURCE:Flight International

US Air Force, industry prepare for T-38 replacement

By Stephen Trimble

The US Air Force may be within months of launching a contest to replace the Northrop T-38 Talon trainer that was introduced in 1962.

At least five companies are plotting potential bids to win the contract to replace 450 T-38s and become the go-to trainer option worldwide for Lockheed Martin's fifth-generation fighters - the F-22 and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

With fewer new contract opportunities available over the next decade, the T-X programme is shaping up as a must-win battle. In terms of quantity, the deal represents the single largest new contract opportunity for manned aircraft in the US defence market for several years.

By 2012, the USAF may select a contractor to build at least 350 aircraft to replace the T-38 alone. But follow-on opportunities, including naval and light attack versions, could push sales to nearly 1,000 aircraft for the Department of Defense.


© PalmsRick Gallery on flightglobal.com/AirSpace

It is an opportunity that the worldwide advanced jet trainer industry has been anticipating for decades. Replacing the T-38 (above) has enticed industry for so long that two of the first companies that became involved were named Samsung and General Dynamics. Neither remains in the aircraft business, but the result of their collaboration in the early 1990s produced the T-50 Golden Eagle (below), which is now offered by Korea Aerospace Industries and Lockheed.

"We designed the T-50 as a T-38 replacement for the US Air Force," says Douglas Miller, Lockheed director for T-50 business development. "We were focused on that opportunity a long time ago."


© Lockheed Martin

The South Korean-built T-50 is not alone. Both the Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master and BAE Systems Hawk 128 have attracted other buyers, but replacing the USAF's T-38 fleet remains the prime goal for both companies.

With KAI tightly aligned with Lockheed, Alenia Aermacchi and BAE may need to find US partners.

Starting in June 2009, Alenia executives spoke openly of plans to offer the M-346 to the USAF as a prime contractor, perhaps using newly acquired DRS Technologies to install sensitive equipment. But the company has changed course since April, when Finmecannica chief executive Pier Francesco Guarguaglini told market analysts that it would seek a US partner.

Meanwhile, BAE's plan is still to offer the Hawk for the T-X contract through its US-based subsidiary BAE Systems Inc.

Ian Reason, BAE's business development director for military air sector training, says the company's starting point is to "deliver this as a prime in our own right, but with a very strong US industrial team around us". However, he adds: "We are not ruling out teaming with a major air sector prime."

For Alenia and BAE, the most obvious partners are Boeing and Northrop Grumman. Not only is Boeing already partnered with BAE as the US Navy's prime contractor for the T-45 Goshawk (below), it also has an agreement with Alenia to market the M-346 internationally.


© Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Nicholas Hall/US Navy

In addition, Northrop may offer advantages to a potential partner as the USAF's incumbent supplier of advanced jet trainers, although the T-38 production line closed in 1972.

However, both manufacturers appear to have different ideas than participating in the T-X contest as a partner to a foreign company.

Boeing, in particular, wants the USAF to factor industrial base issues into the T-X competition. Moreover, industry sources last year confirmed to Flight International that Boeing may offer a "purpose-built" aircraft. With each off-the-shelf option relying heavily on foreign aircraft designers, Boeing may hope to sway the requirements to drive a clean-sheet design launched by a US manufacturer.

So far, Boeing is keeping its strategy for T-X mostly secret. "We have various options on the table," says Dave Schweppe, a business development director for Boeing. "In December-or-so of this year, we can probably be a lot more forthcoming about our offering."

For its part, Northrop also prefers to keep its strategy closely held at this stage.

"Northrop Grumman is interested in the future of this programme, and will look at all options to respond to the needs of the air force," says Scott Collins, director of future tactical systems for Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems.

As the legacy T-38 supplier, Northrop's preferred route may be offering a service life extension programme for the Talon fleet.

Dave McDonald, a plans, programmes and requirements manager for the Air Education and Training Command (AETC), confirms "extending the life of the baseline system" remains one of the options on the USAF's list.

Northrop also has the ability to surprise the competition by producing an all-new, clean-sheet design. In addition to its long heritage in the trainer market, the company owns a major stake in Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites.

Among several ambitious design projects over the years, Scaled designed and built a jet-powered replacement for the Fairchild A-10 ground-attack aircraft in the early 1990s called the agile response effective support aircraft.

The scale of the programme could also spark other surprise offerings from industry.

Dan Korte, president of Rolls-Royce Defence Aerospace, says his company has been in discussions with T-X bidders about offering the Eurojet consortium's EJ200 turbofan as a re-engining option. Even in a single-engined configuration, the prospect of introducing the powerplant of the Eurofighter Typhoon into a T-X offering shows how far vendors are willing to compete for this contract.

Korte declines to name any companies involved in the EJ200 discussions. BAE's Reason has heard about the possible offering, however. "I believe [Rolls-Royce has] been approached by one of the competitors," Reason says. "Everybody's talking to everybody. Until the acquisition strategy settles down, I think there's going to be a lot of discussion."

Meanwhile, USAF officials are working to define what they want to replace the Talon.

The AETC, perhaps mindful of preventing delays as a result of flaws in the acquisition process, has been working on finalising requirements for the T-X since 2003. At that time, a T-38 replacement was not planned until after 2020, as the oldest Talons approached entering a seventh decade of service.

But the USAF seemed to accelerate the T-X acquisition process last year as new concerns arose about the T-38 fleet's viability. A T-38C crash in April 2008 was blamed on an aileron that failed in the full-down position on take off, killing the two-man crew.


© Senior Airman Julius Delos Reyes/US Air Force

USAF officials launched a comprehensive structural assessment in the wake of the accident, and believe the fleet remains viable beyond 2020.

Nonetheless, the service launched the T-X acquisition process less than a year after the T-38C accident, issuing a request for information for an "advanced pilot training family of systems" in March 2009.

For the first time, the initial operational capability date was set for fiscal year 2017 for a family of systems that includes an aircraft, simulator and classroom instruction.

The RFI identified five training tasks for the F-22 and F-35 that "lend themselves" to being performed by a two-seat fighter. The five are "sustained high-g operations, air-refuelling, night vision imaging systems operations, air-to-air intercepts, and datalink operations".

Five months later, the USAF issued a follow-up that clarified the air refuelling task could be performed in a simulator.

McDonald says the next step is to perform an analysis of alternatives. A draft copy in January should identify the feasibility, cost and effectiveness of a wide range of options.

At the same time, the Pentagon must commit funding in the FY2012 budget request, which will be revealed in February 2011. So far, the T-X programme's budget has been limited to assessing options and launching a competition.

If the programme receives budget support, a request for proposals could be issued in February or March in 2011, with contract award possible by the end of the calendar year.

With the introduction of the F-22 and the conventional take-off and landing F-35A, flying the aircraft is supposed to become easier, with more responsive and sophisticated flight controls compared to earlier generations. The next trainer aircraft, however, will have to teach pilots how to manage a cockpit that fuses data coming from several advanced sensors simultaneously.

"You have more things to manage, more things to look at," McDonald says. "Prioritisation of tasks is still an issue."

Although the RFI documents ask vendors whether there is a fighter or attack version of their trainer aircraft, the USAF is not likely to factor combat performance when it comes to evaluating bids.

"I'm looking strictly at the trainer," McDonald says. "What do we need to fill the capability gaps that we have now?"

The USAF has taken a similar approach with the USN's far-term requirement for a T-45 Goshawk replacement.

Navy officials are participating in the analysis of alternatives for the T-X, but carrier-landing capability will not be part of the USAF's evaluation.

It is also possible that the airframe for the USAF's T-X will be different than the USN aircraft, McDonald says. "The navy needs an advanced trainer that's stressed for carrier operations. That's a plain and simple fact." But separate airframes could share common engines and avionics, he says.

Alenia's M-346 is designed specifically to emulate fifth-generation fighter cockpits, but differs in one significant detail: its pilot uses a centre-stick to command a digital fly-by-wire control system. However, the cockpit can be redesigned to accommodate an F-35-style sidestick if a customer requests it, says Alenia North America chief executive John Young.

The M-346 also may be adapted with a universal aerial slipway installation, which would allow the aircraft to be refuelled in-flight by a boom-equipped tanker.

But those seem like minor changes compared with Alenia's surprise rebranding effort unveiled quietly in May. For the T-X competition, the M-346 is renamed the T-100 integrated training system (ITS).


© Alenia North America

The new designation, Young says, is intended to evoke the USAF's historical century-series fighters.

Establishing the T-100 ITS as an American brand is one of the keys to Alenia's strategy. In addition to finding a US-based partner, the company is making several concessions beyond the 50% threshold to meet "buy American" requirements.

Final assembly of the M-346 will transfer from Venegono, Italy, to a US location - perhaps Elizabeth City, North Carolina, or a site chosen by a US partner. Production of Honeywell F124 engines for the rebranded T-100 will shift from Taiwan to Arizona.

With the UK Royal Air Force's Hawk T2/128 set as the baseline for its offer, BAE is positioning itself as the least risky option among the field of competitors.

"Our understanding of this opportunity is that replacing the T-38 is a must-pay bill," says Reason. "Doing nothing is not a zero-cost option. A new acquisition is required. The USAF has significant budget and fiscal constraints at the moment. We can offer a low-risk, low-cost option."


© BAE Systems

Indeed, BAE's strategy is to offer the Hawk T2 version (above), with as few modifications as possible. So far, for example, the company plans to retain the jet's centre-stick configuration, rather than offer a sidestick option.

Some flexibility is possible with the choice of engine, but BAE prefers to retain the Hawk 128's Rolls-Royce Turbomeca Adour 951 turbofan. In a concession to "buy American" requirements, Adour production for the T-X could be moved to the USA, where Rolls-Royce operates a major hub in Indianapolis.

"The Adour is a very capable product," Reason says. "We don't need to change the engine."

As the manufacturer of the F-22 and F-35, Lockheed owns a unique perspective on the lead-in trainer requirement.

"I suspect there's an awful lot of people scratching their head [at other companies] trying to think how [they're] going to approach this opportunity," says Miller. "We're not one of them."

Indeed, Lockheed believes the baseline T-50 design will satisfy the USAF's T-X requirements.

"I think that from a performance perspective there's no change necessary," Miller says. "The T-50 is a remarkably strong performing aircraft. There will be some changes that we incorporate in the avionics and the capabilities that we're able to train to in the aircraft to accommodate the multi-role aspects of the fifth-generation fighters."

Lockheed is also considering transferring T-50 final assembly for the T-X contract to the USA, but leaves the option on the table to continue building the aircraft in South Korea. KAI has already delivered 50 T-50s to the nation's air force, which has ordered a total of 142 as trainers and light attack aircraft.

As big as the T-X contract is to aircraft manufacturers, the competition is also important for companies that provide full-flight simulators, with between 35 and 50 systems likely to be purchased.

McDonald, however, does not expect to see dramatic improvements in simulator technology as T-X proposals are submitted.

"I have not seen any transformational approach to simulation from the vendors," he says. "The fact that the vendors have not come forward with that type of approach indicates to me that it's not out there."

Radical improvements, including holographic-based visuals and centrifuge-based simulators for motion realism, will probably remain on the drawing board.

But simulator vendors are preparing several new technologies, such as improving visual acuity to near-20/20 quality, says Ray Duquette, vice-president of marketing and business development for CAE.

"I don't think we're there yet for the 20/20 requirement," says Duquette. "That will be ready three to five years from now, and that's what industry will strive for."

[buglerbilly]

Petraeus Gives Shout-Out to B-1B Lancer Fleet



Last week, we wrote that the Air Force Council, the blue suiters board of directors that advises the air chief, was considering deep cuts to force structure to meet aggressive savings targets laid out by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. One option they are reportedly considering is early retirement of all 66 B-1B Lancer bombers, last delivered in the late 1980s.

Yesterday, the Lancer fleet got a hearty shout-out from new installed Afghan commander Gen. David Petraeus. “It is a great platform,” he told senators at his confirmation hearing. “It carries a heck of a lot of bombs… and it has very good intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities.”

It can loiter for long periods of time in a combat-air patrol, using its Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod which contains a laser designator, 3rd Gen. FLIR and digital cameras that function well both day and night to search out insurgent movements or IED emplacers. “It is almost like having another unmanned aerial vehicle in terms of full motion video and so forth,” he said.

“So it’s not just a case of a very, very capable bomber just boring holes in the sky waiting to open the bomb-bay doors, it is also the case of a platform that’s very capable even as it is just flying around in circles.”

So take heart Lancer pilots!

Of course Petraeus isn’t just randomly throwing out compliments to aging bombers, he was prompted by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.); the Lancer equipped 28th Bomb Wing operates out of Ellsworth Air Force Base in Thune’s state.

– Greg Grant.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/#ixzz0sORZvMo3
Defense.org

[buglerbilly]

Pilots told to save money, fuel

By Bruce Rolfsen - Staff writer, Air Force Times

Posted : Saturday Jul 3, 2010 9:39:25 EDT



Pilots are hearing calls the earthbound are well familiar with: Slow down. Don’t turn on the engine until you are ready to leave. Do you really need to go there?

These are new rules for aircrews, part of the Air Force effort to use less fuel and save money.

“Trying to teach a fighter pilot or a bomber pilot to approach energy differently can almost be as challenging as trying to educate my daughters to turn the lights off and not spend so much time drying their hair,” Lt. Gen. William Rew, vice commander of Air Combat Command, told other military leaders and energy industry officials at a two-day Air Force energy forum in May.

Driving the conservation push is fuel use — 84 percent of the Air Force’s energy costs.

Before the consumption crackdown, pilots didn’t worry much about saving fuel unless the gas gauge needle was on empty and they needed to find a tanker, according to Rew.

Pilots “like to go fast and think, ‘if I go afterburner, I want to use as much as I want,’” Rew said.

Now, ACC pilots get an annual review of their fuel savings. If they don’t do well, they get a talking to.

“We’ll have a little attention adjustment or they will suffer the consequences,” said Rew, an F-16 Fighting Falcon pilot and three-time wing commander.

Rew told Air Force Times that pilots aren’t restricted on fuel use during the combat phase of a training sortie. The focus is on what happens before and after planes enter the training range.

At Red Flag exercises over Nevada, for example, commanders tell the fighter pilots to cut their speed on their return to Nellis Air Force Base. Instead of 350 knots, the pilots fly at 300 knots.

Air Education and Training Command aims to start aircrew members thinking about fuel conservation while they are still earning their wings, said Lt. Col. Frank Yannuzzi, chief of the flying training branch for undergraduate flight training.

Most measures are simple, he said, such as keeping engines off during preflight preparations until they need to be turned on and not filling up fuel tanks, which make a plane heavier, unless the mission requires it.

Once the student pilot is off the ground, training takes priority over fuel conservation, Yannuzzi said.

Flight simulators are another way the Air Force can save fuel. How much a student pilot uses a simulator depends primarily on his skill level and the type of plane, said Ron Hamada of the graduate training division.

A new student pilot flying a T-6 Texan trainer needs as much time in the air as he can get, he said. A student pilot moving on to training for operational assignments, though, would use a simulator.

For example, a C-130J Hercules student pilot trains only in a simulator during the basic phase of his course and moves to a plane for the mission training phase.

[buglerbilly]

New ejection seat added to T-38

Posted 7/9/2010 Email story Print story

by Robert Goetz
502nd Air Base Wing OL-B Public Affairs



7/9/2010 - RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE, Texas (AFNS) -- The T-38 Talon is receiving an upgrade that officials said will improve aircrews' safety and comfort.

Representatives from Martin-Baker Aircraft Co. Inc. are in the early stages of installing their new escape systems in all T-38Cs at Randolph AFB after completing the same project at Laughlin AFB, Texas, the first of five Air Education and Training Command installations scheduled for the upgrade.

One of the greatest advantages of the new seat, called the Mk US16T, is that it functions well in the situation that accounts for most ejections, said Rick French, an AETC T-38 program manager.

"The old ejection seat has the least capability in the flight regime where the most ejections occurred, the low-altitude, low-airspeed range, because it takes a few seconds for the parachute to open when you leave the aircraft," Mr. French said.

"The best part of the new seat is that it's a zero-zero seat," said Rey Gutierrez, a 12th Operations Support Squadron Aircrew Flight Equipment instructor. "It will eject at zero altitude and zero airspeed, so the aircrew can bail out on the ground."

The new seat provides rapid deployment of the parachute following ejection, Mr. French said.

"When the seat clears the aircraft, explosives deploy the parachute," he said. "It's almost instantaneous."


Rey Gutierrez goes over procedures for connecting the parachute harness to the new T-38 ejection seat June 30, 2010, while Maj. Bryan France connects his harness shoulder straps to the seat. The new seat has a host of features that will make ejecting from the aircraft, should the need arise, much safer for the pilots. Mr. Gutierrez is an aircrew flight equipment instructor in the12th Operational Support Squadron at Randolph Air Force Base, Texas. Major France is a pilot in the 435th Flying Training Squadron. (U.S. Air Force photo/Steve Thurow)

A bonus for aircrew members is that they no longer have to carry their 45-pound parachutes to the aircraft, because each one is part of the ejection seat, enclosed in a container called the head box. Their only requirement is to wear a 5-pound harness that attaches to the ejection seat. The parachute itself, an aeroconical design, incorporates multiple safety features.

Another feature, the inter-seat sequencing system, which has a selector box with three options, decreases the possibility of aircrew collision during ejection and potential aircrew burn, because the rear seat will always eject first, no matter which crew member pulls the seat firing handle located on the front of the seat.

Another advantage of sequencing "is that the rear seat ejects up and to the right, and the front seat ejects up and to the left, so a collision is unlikely," Mr. Gutierrez said.

In addition, the seat decreases the potential of injury to aircrew members, especially at high airspeed, because its thigh and ankle restraints keep them more secure. It also expands the population who can fly the T-38 to anyone from 103 to 245 pounds, because the seat has two positions, including one that moves it one inch forward.

"Now the seat can better accommodate smaller pilots," Mr. French said. "The old seat accommodates 58 percent of female pilots; the new seat brings that percentage up to 87 percent."

The seat's other features include a survival kit with a radio, flares, a mirror, a first aid kit, water, a flashlight and other items as well as fittings that allow for a faster release of the parachute canopy, Mr. Gutierrez said.

The T-38 has been a part of the Air Force's fleet for nearly 50 years.

[buglerbilly]

DATE:14/07/10

SOURCE:Flight International

US Senators raise alarms over more C-17 add-ons

By Stephen Trimble

Two US Senators are concerned that fellow legislators on the appropriations committee are likely to add funding to buy more Boeing C-17s, despite strong opposition from the Obama administration.

Arizona Senator John McCain and Delaware Senator Thomas Carper took the unusual step of organising a hearing outside the normal appropriations process on 14 July specifically to question the affordability of adding even more C-17s to the US Air Force strategic airlift fleet.

Congress has inserted about $10 billion to add 43 C-17s to military budgets since 2007, when the Bush administration originally attempted to shut down the production line in Long Beach, California.

The Obama administration adopted the same policy, but was ignored by legislators who in 2009 voted to add 18 more C-17s in two separate spending bills, raising the USAF's total fleet of the type to 223 aircraft.


© USAF

So far, the four committees that administer the defence appropriations process have not added funds for more C-17s this year, but that could still change, McCain says.

He cites the strong possibility that fellow senators on the appropriations committee may add funds for C-17s as the reason for the 14 July hearing, which was hosted by Carper's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee.

"Let's be clear: the only thing sustaining the C-17 programme in the face of a military requirement that is and will likely remain satisfied is the predominance of the military-industrial complex," McCain says. "These machinations should end."

Although the USAF has not asked for additional funds, the Air National Guard has published a list of unfunded priorities that include a need for five more C-17s worth $1.3 billion.

USAF officials at the hearing testified that the strategic airlift fleet is over capacity by 10%. That analysis drove the decision to stop C-17 production after 2012 and retire 22 of the least reliable Lockheed Martin C-5As, they say.

Boeing is working to keep production alive by slowing the rate of deliveries from 15 last year to 10 in 2012, while maintaining current prices. The company also is pursuing more foreign sales opportunities, including a potential order in India for 10 aircraft.

[buglerbilly]

Strategy Emerges To Prevent More U.S. C-17 Funding

By WILLIAM MATTHEWS

Published: 14 Jul 2010 11:46

As the 2011 U.S. defense budget creeps languidly through Congress, two senators have launched an effort to keep their colleagues from adding money to buy more C-17 cargo planes.

Sens. Tom Carper, D-Del., and John McCain, R-Ariz., held a hearing July 13 so three senior Pentagon officials and two other military experts could testify - repeatedly - that the U.S. Air Force does not need any more C-17s.

Rather, the Air Force has an airlift surplus of at least 10 percent that could easily be expanded to 20 percent or more, the five witnesses agreed.

The Air Force hasn't asked for more money to buy C-17s since 2007. That year the Air Force wanted 12, and Congress bought it 22. In 2008, the Air Force wanted none, but Congress bought 15. In 2009, the request was also zero, and Congress bought eight. In 2010, the Air Force once again asked for no C-17s, and lawmakers bought 10.

Carper said this year he has decided "to play offense" and get the Air Force unambiguously on the record as saying it wants no more C-17s before appropriations committees in the Senate and House again buy more of them.

The C-17 is a great airplane, Carper said. But the fleet of 223 that the Air Force now has, together with a fleet of 111 C-5 airlifters, provides more lift than the U.S. military needs. And buying even more C-17s is more than the U.S. can afford, he said.

The U.S. government is currently overspending its budget by $1.3 trillion a year. To do so it has to borrow money from China, Japan, Britain and other countries, Carper said. The U.S. is borrowing at a rate that is unsustainable, he warned.

Carper isn't the only one who is worried. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said the Pentagon must cut $100 billion, mostly in administrative expenses over the next five years.

"We have a lot more capability than we need," Carper said. "And we have a lot more appetite than money. When you're in a hole, stop digging."

In a worst case scenario, the Defense Department estimates that it will need 32.7 million ton-miles of airlift a day. Today it can airlift 35.9 million ton-miles a day, said Maj. Gen. Susan Desjardins, the Air Force Air Mobility Command's director of strategic plans, requirements and programs.

The Air Force doesn't need more C-17s, she said. In fact, the Air Force would like permission from Congress to retire 22 of its oldest C-5s, she said. That would save $325 million in maintenance, flying and modernization costs over the next five years, she said.

Since 2007, Congress has spent more than $10 billion buying C-17s that the Air Force doesn't want, according to Carper.

"It's waste, pure and simple," said Mike McCord, the Pentagon's deputy budget chief. Each dollar spent on unneeded equipment is money that can't be spent on necessities, he said.

McCain, who has battled against buying more C-17s for years, said it is important for senior military officials to say clearly that no more C-17s are needed. "But how the Appropriations Committee will act remains to be seen," he said.

Appropriations committees in both houses of Congress wield enormous power, often adding favored projects to annual budgets.

What keeps the C-17 going is the influence the "military-industrial complex" has with the committees, McCain said. "The needs of the war fighters should predominate, not the profits" of defense companies, he said.

"Giving us something we don't need is the gift that keeps on giving," said Alan Estevez, principal deputy assistant defense secretary for logistics and material readiness. The money spent to buy the unwanted planes is just the beginning. The extra C-17s consume tens of millions a year in maintenance and operating costs, he said.

McCain said, "The argument we need to make to our colleagues is that there will be at least $1 billion in extra costs" if Congress keeps buying C-17s.

Each new C-17 costs $244.5 million, said Jeremiah Gertler, a military aviation expert with the Congressional Research Service.

The planes are popular with lawmakers for a number of reasons:

■ Jobs. "Members' own statements and press releases make clear that economic and employment benefits for a particular geographical area" affect buying decisions, Gertler said.

■ Military need. Some members of Congress simply disagree with the Pentagon's assessment of how many airlifters are needed.

■ Industrial base. Some lawmakers believe it is necessary to keep the C-17 production line open in case more planes are needed in the future.

But C-17s aren't the only answer if there are future airlift needs, said William Greer, of the Institute for Defense Analysis.

Lift capacity could be increased by 10 percent or 20 percent without buying more planes, if the Air Force made better use of refueling tankers for airlift, by relying more on civilian cargo planes, relying on allies and by having C-5s fly with fuller loads, Greer said.

Carper said saving money by not buying unneeded C-17s is only one step the U.S. government needs to take to bring its budget under control. He said he plans to meet with McCain and Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, to discuss Congress' determination to buy a multibillion-dollar alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter despite Pentagon insistence that the engine is not needed.

Carper called for financial reforms outside the Pentagon as well. Billions of dollars in owed taxes go uncollected each year, he said. Millions more in improper payments are made by government agencies and not retrieved when the mistakes are discovered.

Between 2001 and 2008, the United States took on as much debt as it had in its entire history before that, Carper said. "And now it's even higher. It's not sustainable."

The defense budget sought for 2011 is $726 billion, including funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[buglerbilly]

VIDEO: RIAT begins with fab F-22 take-off

By Stephen Trimble on July 15, 2010 2:07 PM

Tough to be at work in Virginia knowing the Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT) is taking place right now in Fairford, UK. But at least we have a T-1 line and YouTube! Here's the F-22 on takeoff today.

[buglerbilly]

Air Force's 'Technology Horizons' Makes Science Fiction A Reality

(Source: U.S Air Force; issued July 15, 2010)

WASHINGTON --- With innovations seemingly plucked from the latest futuristic Hollywood movie script, Technology Horizons outlines the Air Force's major science and technology objectives through the next decade, officials said here July 14.

Highly adaptable, autonomous systems that can make intelligent decisions about their battle space capabilities and human-machine brainwave coupling interfaces are but two significant technologies contained in the document, said Dr. Werner J.A. Dahm, the Air Force chief scientist.

"These are hands down, slam dunk, among the biggest findings in Technology Horizons; this is one of those 'a-ha' moments for the Air Force," Dr. Dahm said. "If you come back 20 years from now, you'll see an Air Force that looks substantially different than what you see today, and it will look that different, in part, because of Technology Horizons."

Air Force Research Laboratory engineers will use the document to help plan technologies of the future, and have already begun implementing some of the key findings in Technology Horizons.

"We will be making greater use of autonomous systems, reasoning and processes in almost everything the Air Force does," Dr. Dahm said. "This is not only in terms of increasing and enhancing remote-piloted aircraft, but in developing new ways of letting systems learn about their situations to decide how they can adapt to best meet the operator's intent."

He described how future autonomous aircraft would be able to sense battle damage and make intelligent decisions about their remaining capabilities.

"Such adaptable autonomous systems will be able to automatically re-plan their mission to maximize their effectiveness," Dr. Dahm explained. "In decision-making systems and processes, these systems can give us a tremendous operational edge over potential adversaries who are limited to human decision and control."

He explained that in today's combined air operations centers, for example, there are several hundred people involved in assembling daily air tasking orders. Adaptable autonomous decision-making systems can handle many of these steps, reducing the number of people who must be deployed.

Such advanced levels of autonomy, Dr. Dahm added, complement another key focus of Technology Horizons: human performance augmentation.

"Natural human capacities are becoming increasingly mismatched to the data volumes, processing capabilities and decision speeds that technologies either offer or demand," Dr. Dahm said.

He said autonomous systems and advanced human-machine interfaces are among ways the service can meet this rapidly growing challenge.

"To identify threats in full-motion video, we can outfit a helmet with literally hundreds of brainwave sensors and begin to localize and identify reactions you have, even below the level at which you could put them into words," Dr. Dahm said.

Dr. Dahm explained the brain is presented with cues as the video images plays.

"Some of those cues will be strong enough for you to say, 'stop, I saw something there,' but many other cues may be so low that they evoke only an intuitive response without rising to the level of conscious reaction," he said.

Brainwave sensors can potentially detect these, in effect providing Airmen with enhanced intuitive capabilities reminiscent of Spiderman.

These human performance technologies can create a dynamic in which the machine and the analyst are almost inseparable.

"We are beginning to be able to couple humans and machines in ways that were unthinkable 10 years ago," Dr. Dahm said.

He admits that the concept of an Airman literally becoming part of the computing environment is "bizarre, but technologically credible."

As missions become increasingly faster and more complex, Air Force researchers will need to consider and implement these advancing technologies where they make sense, he said.

Dr. Dahm cited another example in which the same skull caps can measure brainwaves and determine if, by nature, Airmen are trainable to be effective in certain roles or careers.

"Many of these technologies are focused on gaining capability increases even with a smaller force size, Dr. Dahm said. "We will have a much stronger focus on advancing and applying technologies that can make our Airmen even more effective than they are today."

As the Air Force's "in-house" research arm, AFRL researchers will be at the forefront of translating the Technology Horizons' vision into reality.

Some of the research will be contracted out to companies ranging from big aerospace to small innovative firms, Dr. Dahm said.

Air Force officials also will partner with the other services, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, NASA, other agencies and even international partners aligned with U.S. Air Force interests, he added.

In this revolutionary age of social media and online gaming, Dr. Dahm contends the Airmen of today are primed for these very technologies designed to maintain the service's superiority in 2020, 2030 and beyond.

"If this had come out of the blue 50 years ago, even if the technology were ready, the workforce -- the Airmen -- would not have been ready," Dr. Dahm said. "Today, both the technology and our Airmen are ready. Technology Horizons is going to enable changes that literally reshape the Air Force."

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Presentation slides on the USAF future................via The Dew Line blog and Steven Trimble.............

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/07/download-usaf-reveals-the-futu.html

[buglerbilly]

Wii Air Force: Will Gamer Gloves Help Fly Combat Jets?

By Spencer Ackerman July 28, 2010 | 3:05 pm



The Air Force Research Laboratory’s band of futurists at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base think that pilots and flight engineers spend way too much time flipping switches and pressing buttons. In a recent pre-solicitation, the labs made it known they want enterprising engineers to design a pair of high-tech flight gloves that can help you fly a plane.

“Warfighter productivity is limited by the need to operate equipment via physical keys, switches, and buttons and to coordinate 3-D events viewed from different perspectives via time-consuming voice communications,” the labs lamented last week. The response? Link all the stuff necessary to flying a plane into a pair of gloves with gesture-recognition technology sewn in. Well, at least the stuff on cockpit annunciator panels.

“Pilots and mission crew need a means to annotate the real world out the cockpit or helicopter door with hand motions that become geo-registered icons on the displays of all air crew and ground team members simultaneously,” the labs urge. “All airmen need an ability to type commands, reports, etc. by simply moving their fingers in air.”

So, it may be a couple of years before you wave your hands like Luke on Dagobah and your F-22 takes off. But for the rest of what it takes to fly, just pull on the gloves, wave your hands around in a couple of specific ways to command the plane, and enjoy to your career in the Wii Air Force.

And that’s a natural thing. The labs don’t put it quite this way, but gesture recognition tech is the direction that gaming has been heading ever since the Wii taught everyone how to bowl virtually. According to one account of this year’s E3 Expo, PlayStation and Microsoft are pulling out all the stops to get their gaming consoles to recognize players’ gyrations and wobbles. In May, Gadgetlab reported that a pair of MIT researchers taught a computer to respond to commands transmitted through hand motions made in a pair of $1 lycra gloves aimed at a webcam.

Viewed from that perspective, the military is behind the power curve on gesture recognition — a technology that has obvious possibilities for increasing efficiencies when performing complex tasks like aviation. And if the gamers of the ’90s and early 2000s are now piloting drones with interfaces modeled on Splinter Cell, why shouldn’t the Wii masters of today use their skills to maintain U.S. air dominance tomorrow?

Touchingly, the labs’ pre-solicitation includes a few links to companies and products that already employ gesture recognition, almost as a defensive demonstration that the technology is sufficiently mature. (“[I]t is now possible to make real computer display interfaces based on gestures such as those depicted in recent science fiction movies….” It’s science fact!) One example: the Peregrine, a game controller in the shape of a gnarly, Captain Eo-looking glove. “By simply touching your fingertips with your thumb you can control your game faster than ever before,” designer Iron Will Innovations pledges. Its motto: Touch for the Win. Sounds like a squadron patch waiting to happen.

Credit: MyEGnet

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/07/want-to-fly-a-plane-with-gamer-gloves/#more-28349#ixzz0v1tygVOS

[buglerbilly]

US Facing Lack of Pilots, Not Planes, in Afghanistan

Updated: 6 minutes ago

Sharon Weinberger

AOL News (July 28) -- With the United States in the midst of a crucial surge in Afghanistan, demand for surveillance aircraft is at an all-time high. But after more than a decade of moving toward spy drones, the Air Force is facing a crisis: a lack of pilots with experience flying manned reconnaissance planes.

In response to the war's increasing demands, the Air Force last year activated three MC-12 squadrons, which use a military version of the Hawker Beechcraft Super King Air 350, a lightweight twin turboprop aircraft. The MC-12 Liberty is equipped with a variety of sensors, including full-motion video and a day and night camera.

The Air Force has touted the aircraft's success in tracking down insurgents and disrupting attempts to plant roadside bombs, but officers involved in the program acknowledge that getting enough MC-12 pilots has been a challenge.


Staff Sgt. Manuel J. Martinez, USAF
The Air Force does not have enough skilled pilots to fly its MC-12 reconnaissance planes. Here, Lt. Col. Rob Weaver goes through a routine check of the instrument panel in an MC-12 Liberty.

Already, the Air Force has run out of qualified volunteers to fly the MC-12s and must now draft pilots into the program. And regardless of whether the pilots volunteer or are assigned, getting them trained and deployed to Afghanistan is no easy task.

"The key here is supply and demand," explains Lt. Col. Rick Berryhill, the MC-12 operations officer, who notes there's essentially been a "15-year lapse" in the Air Force's production of new manned intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft.

"It was a very shallow pool [of pilots], and we're catching up as quick as possible," Berryhill says. "It takes awhile to recover from that; we're shoving folks out as fast as possible."

Pilots are being trained at Key Field in Meridian, Miss., where the MC-12s are located for now. They arrive for a hectic monthlong training course, and then deploy immediately to Afghanistan for six-month tours. After that, they return to their previous assignments.

This rushed program is a result, in large part, of Pentagon pressure on the Air Force to provide more surveillance aircraft.

"My concern is that our services are still not moving aggressively in wartime to provide resources needed now on the battlefield," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in 2008. "While we have doubled this capability in recent months, it is still not good enough."

The Air Force moved to increase the number of Predator spy drones, but also came up with the MC-12 Liberty, a low-altitude manned fixed-wing aircraft. While a Predator drone may be able to fly longer, the MC-12 can also perform signals intelligence, meaning it can intercept communications.

That ability to combine many different sensors is why one senior Air Force official called it a "Predator on steroids."

But unlike the Predator, which is flown remotely from Creech Air Force Base in Nevada, the MC-12 requires a four-person crew on board: two pilots, a sensor operator and a cryptologist, who deciphers the intelligence picked up by the sensors.

Training pilots under such strict time constraints, and getting them deployed on time, has been a challenge. "The problem with the MC-12 is, again, we've only been doing this for year," says Lt. Col. Harlie Bodine, the director of MC-12 operations. "With any new system, there's going to be curve balls thrown at you."

After training, the pilots spend about six months in Afghanistan, and then return to their original assignment. That creates yet another challenge, because the MC-12 squadron then loses those pilots, and the experience they gained in training and operations.

"I'll never see that experience come back," Bodine says.

That problem will be solved in large part once the MC-12s are assigned to a permanent base and have pilots on regular assignments. Half a dozen bases are being considered as permanent homes for the MC-12s.

Perhaps the bigger question is, in the age of drones, do manned aircraft still have something to offer? For Bodine, the answer is a definite yes.

There have been times, he says, when having humans in the cockpit has proved useful, citing a recent incident where a crew member looked out the window of the aircraft and saw a large smoke cloud, which turned out to be a U.S. military convoy that had been ambushed. The MC-12 was able to provide immediate support.

"Would a Predator have been able to do that? Yes, but it would have taken time," Bodine says, noting that for a drone to respond it would mean routing the request from ground forces to a combined air operations center, and then back to pilots located in the United States.

Those involved in the program declined to discuss the specifics of the mission, citing security. But the high demand for the aircraft, they say, is proof of its worth.

"Unfortunately," Bodine says, "we are suffering from a catastrophic success."

[buglerbilly]

Air Guard Officials Focus on Equipment for Domestic Operations

(Source: U.S Air Force; issued August 3, 2010)

BALTIMORE, Md. --- Hundreds of Air National Guard members are meeting here Aug. 2 through Aug. 6 to discuss and prioritize the Air National Guard's equipment requirements for future natural and manmade disasters.

The Domestic Operations Equipment Requirements conference provides Air Guard leaders, subject matter experts and others a platform to meet and discuss their needs for domestic missions.

"It is your job to identify and prioritize the requirements essential to ensuring the link (with civilian authorities) is both effective and efficient," Lt. Gen. Harry Wyatt III, the director of the Air Guard, wrote in his memo to the attendees.

The conference attendees represent the units, states and FEMA regions they serve.

They attended working groups on public health and medical services; public safety; public works and engineering; emergency management; transportation; communications; mass care, emergency assistance, housing and human services;
oils and hazardous material response.

Guard officials said the working groups consider several factors, including:
-- Ways to apply military capabilities resident in units to domestic operations
-- How to help the many levels of authorities work together and bring together a myriad of responders and their capabilities
-- The gaps in response capabilities and how to ensure solutions are interoperable with both civil and military responders

There has been recent increased reliance and acceptance of the Guard and its missions, said Maj. Gen. Garry Dean, the commander of 1st Air Force and U.S. North American Aerospace Defense Command.

"The timing of this conference is truly amazing as to where the Guard is right now," he said.

General Dean noted the corporate process of DOERS was to generate the data supporting Air Guard's requirements.

"We must continue to strike toward commonality and better synchronization of our components," he said.

Air Guard officials held their first DOERs last year, which produced a 2011 Essential-10 Requirements book.

Military, elected and other top officials used that book to understand communicate and prioritize the Air Guard's domestic requirements for funding and resources.

General Wyatt told the conferees they had a "daunting task before them" this year.

"Our job would be difficult enough if we were in charge and trying to fulfill our own requirements, but we are just one small element in a whole of government responsibility and must try to envision how the Air Guard fits within a much larger, ever changing matrix of authorities and responders," he said.

The working groups will produce a final briefing for General Wyatt and a new 2012 Essential-10 Requirements book this week.

"It's a working conference," said Col. Michael McDonald, the commander of the Air Guard Readiness Center at Joint Base Andrews, Md.

He told conferees to keep teamwork between the states, regions, agencies and others in mind during the development process.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Tactical Aircraft: DOD's Ability to Meet Future Requirements Is Uncertain, with Key Analyses Needed to Inform Upcoming Investment Decisions

(Source: US Government Accountability Office; issued Aug. 10, 2010)


Continuing delays in the Joint Strike Fighter program could require a $7 billion upgrade of about 300 US Navy/Marine Corps F-18C Hornets, says the GAO in a new report. (US Navy photo)

From 2011 through 2015, DOD plans to spend over $336 billion to operate, maintain, modernize, and recapitalize its tactical air forces. Since DOD projects tactical aircraft inventory shortfalls over the next 15 years, it must effectively balance resources between an increasingly expensive Joint Strike Fighter program and the need to keep its legacy aircraft viable.

GAO was asked to assess DOD's tactical aircraft requirements, the extent to which plans for upgrading and retiring legacy aircraft and acquiring new aircraft are likely to meet the requirements, and how changes in strategic plans and threat assessments have affected requirements. GAO analyzed tactical aircraft requirement and inventory data, key plans and threat assessments.

DOD's current combined tactical aircraft requirement is around 3,240 aircraft. The requirement includes a mix of various types of Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps fixed-wing fighter and attack aircraft. The Air Force requirement is 2,000 aircraft, and the combined Navy and Marine Corps requirement is about 1,240 aircraft. To achieve national security objectives, however, DOD not only needs the right quantity of aircraft to adequately equip each service's force structure, but must also have the right organization and mix of aircraft capabilities.

The services have reduced required quantities by a combined total of around 900 aircraft since 2002. Service officials believe that the current numbers provide sufficient capabilities to carry out assigned missions with manageable risk, but are not at optimal levels. Although officials also stated that current requirements account for capabilities provided by other weapon systems, such as unmanned aircraft and bombers, it is unclear exactly how and to what extent.

DOD expects to encounter shortfalls in both Air Force and Navy tactical aircraft inventories, but the timing and magnitude of these shortfalls largely depend on assumptions about Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) acquisitions and the viability of legacy aircraft. The JSF program has continued to experience cost and schedule problems and is in the process of being restructured. In addition, DOD's investments in legacy systems have generally been assigned lower priority in the budgeting process.

As a result, many legacy aircraft systems are becoming increasingly difficult to maintain as parts needed to support key subsystems age and become obsolete. The Navy and Air Force are exploring various options for closing their projected inventory shortfalls--including upgrading and extending the service lives of hundreds of legacy aircraft, and making modifications to how tactical air forces are used. Many of these options may be funded in future budgets and could cost billions of dollars.

The services have not fully reconsidered tactical aircraft requirements in light of recent changes in strategic planning and threat assessments, but according to service officials, the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) affirmed the existing force structure in the near-term, principally the next 5 years. Similarly, DOD's recent Aircraft Investment Plan, which was required by Congress, and fiscal year 2011 budget decisions did not directly affect tactical aircraft requirements, but did make some changes in near-term aircraft investments.

The QDR reflected a change in how DOD views future national security challenges, examined expected challenges in various combinations, and recognized the need to plan for and acquire adaptive and agile systems, including unmanned aircraft. The department is still in the process of establishing the analytical foundation for its future requirements.

Until requirements analyses and JSF restructuring are complete and capabilities provided by unmanned aircraft and bombers are more clearly accounted for, it will be difficult for DOD to make informed investments in legacy aircraft upgrades and modernizations, and new aircraft procurements.

GAO suggests that Congress consider requiring that costs associated with modernizing and sustaining the legacy fleet be included in future investment plans, and recommends that DOD:
1) better define requirements and the size and severity of projected shortfalls,
2) clearly articulate how systems like unmanned aircraft are accounted for, and
3) complete a comprehensive cost and benefit analysis of options for addressing expected shortfalls.

DOD agreed with the second recommendation and partially agreed with the others, citing current and planned actions. GAO believes its recommendations remain valid.

Click here for the full report (80 pages in PDF format) on the GAO website.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10789.pdf

(EDITOR’S NOTE: Among the report’s more interesting points is the finding that F/A-18E/F unit costs are expected to increase from $61 million in FY2011 to $76 million in FY2013, i.e. an increase of 25% in two years. (see Table 2, page 22).
The document also includes status reports on tactical air programs are also a handy summing up of the current state of play.
Citing this report, Bloomberg news service reported Aug. 9 that “Boeing Co. may receive $7 billion to extend the use of the Navy’s older fleet of F/A-18 jets, partly because of delays in Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. In its 2012-2016 budget proposal, the Navy is considering spending the money to upgrade about 300 F/A-18 A and D fighters and lengthen their service lives by about 16 percent to 10,000 flight hours.”

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Forget the Drones: Executive Plane Now an Afghanistan Flying Spy

By Spencer Ackerman August 11, 2010 | 12:03 am



BAGRAM AIR FIELD, Afghanistan — With its rail-thin interior and the twin propellers flanking its nose cone like Salvador Dali’s mustache, the tiny MC-12 looks like it should be leisurely ferrying well-heeled passengers to the Vineyard. In the United States, this plane’s corporate cousins handle cushy jobs like that every day. But here in Afghanistan, this executive carrier has been turned into an unlikely spy — one of the U.S. forces’ most valuable intelligence assets, airmen say.

One of the things that makes it so valuable, and so seemingly unusual: There’s a pilot sitting in the cockpit. Armed Predator and Reaper drones have become the robotic face of the American air war here – able to stay in the air for a day at a time, and blast insurgents with hellfire missiles. The MC-12, on the other hand, has no firepower. It typically flies for a couple of hours at a time. And it’s not supposed to be a competitor to the drones, but rather a more tactical and collaborative supplement.

If the Predator gives ground commanders and intelligence analysts long-term viewing, for instance, the MC-12 gives ground units more and complementary options: a snapshot overview of a rapidly changing battlefield, right at the moment when information needs change, working in collaboration with the unit on the ground. Or, to use the mantra of Lt. Col. Douglas J. Lee, the commander of the Old Crows, the MC-12 squadron for the Bagram-based 455th Air Expeditionary Wing, “flexibility and responsiveness.” Welcome to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance with a human face – or, maybe, welcome back.

Lee, a serene 40-year-old pilot with 2000 flight hours under his belt, introduced Afghanistan to the MC-12 on Dec. 27, 2009, when he stood up the squadron, part of. Since then, his airmen have flown close to 2000 missions. Kandahar — Afghanistan’s other big air base — is now getting its own MC-12 crew.

I count ten of the twin-engine planes on Bagram’s runway, as Lee escorts me out. But that’s by no means a complete figure; there are probably many more. Inside, the MC-12 is too skinny to allow you to fully extend your arms from side to side. It’s a souped-up version of a C-12 Huron, King Air or Beechcraft passenger aircraft, a plane that the military has used since the ’70s. To put it more charitably, when Gates ordered the Air Force to rapidly get more spy planes downrange, the MC-12 was an “off the shelf” option, Briggs notes, procurable with relative ease and capable of getting outfitted with the latest surveillance tech. Suddenly airmen were looking at a familiar plane in new ways.

And these MC-12s are way tricked out. The passenger seating is gone, replaced with two stations for the operators of the plane’s intel gear – meaning the MC-12 is crewed by a team of only four people, including the pilot and co-pilot. Each station is outfitted with several monitors and a forest of black cables leading to unfamiliar gizmos. Just how the plane’s spy gear works is classified, as is a lot of basic information about the MC-12, including how high it flies. “We have full-motion video capabilities, as well as SIGINT [signals intelligence] capabilities,” is all Lee will say.

But that’s what gives the plane the “flexibility and responsiveness” that gives Lee and Briggs pride. To explain that requires a quick and somewhat meta point about drones.

Troops on the ground certainly make use of the broad overview that drones offer. But out on a mission, a ground commander might also need something more specific. He also might need to change his focus rapidly in order to get a better idea of what’s going on around him. That’s where the MC-12 comes in. Talking through forward Air Force liaisons riding with ground troops known as JTACs, the pilots and intel operators in the MC-12 work with ground forces to rapidly answer – and anticipate – commanders’ questions about what their area actually looks like, and collaborate with them when their information needs shift. The MC-12 incorporates intel gathered from the drones, supplementing and focusing it in a tactical way with the troops below.

The drones also have the capability to do that, of course, and they talk to ground troops through JTACs, too. But that’s where the human element comes in. As fast a transmission as a ground commander might have with a drone operator back in the U.S., with the MC-12, the loop can close more rapidly, as officers on the ground talk with pilots in the air to come up with a full tactical intelligence menu. When they need to switch courses, so to speak, they do so together. Indeed, Briggs notes, the airmen of the MC-12 eat at the same dining facilities as the soldiers back on base, forging a certain rapport. You can’t really do that with drone operators back in the States.

For instance: Airmen in the MC-12 might go from providing “IED overwatch to a route scan for a patrol to immediately providing overwatch for a ground assault or a helo assault,” Lee says. Or they might see some smoke coming from a position near the ground unit they’re supporting “and then look out a other aspects” of the battlespace to get a fuller picture of a fight that might change in an instant.

Briggs puts it a little differently — and hints at why he considers the MC-12 to be a “catastrophic success.” If a ground unit chasing an insurgent clears in on the compound he’s using for a hideout, that unit needs to know “which building he’s in and on which floor” he’s on to take him out. (USA Todaycredited intel from the MC-12 with taking down 20 insurgents in Afghanistan so far.)

To be clear: The MC-12 isn’t armed. It’s not going to shoot or bomb anything. “Of course,” Lee qualifies, “I consider knowledge a weapon.”

And, as the cliché goes, in a counterinsurgency, the best weapons don’t necessarily shoot. The MC-12 also helps ground forces “identify where civilians are or are not,” Lee says, thereby helping minimize civilian casualties and targeting insurgents more precisely. Like drones and other intelligence assets, the MC-12 can help provide information on other key indicators of civilian life: Are kids attending schools? Are people shopping at markets? “It gives us a picture of normal as well as abnormal,” Lee notes – all as the planes fly over the ground units who need that information immediately.

Briggs and Lee aren’t the only ones who have faith in the MC-12. The Air Force announced late last month that Beale Air Force Base in California will be its preferred home location of the MC-12, an indicator that the platform is here to stay (although a permanent basing decision is still pending). And as Nathan Hodge previously reported for Danger Room, the MC-12 was at work in Iraq before flying eastward to Afghanistan.

And that helps give the Air Force something that many in the service want to see: a platform for the intel mission with a pilot in the cockpit. For his part, Lee considers the UAV-versus-manned debate to be too reductive. Much as “you don’t want an Air Force of all fighters or all tankers,” he says, he doesn’t consider manned and unmanned platforms as an either/or proposition. And in any case, he’s focused on his mission.

“I’m a firm believer in warfare as a human endeavor,” Lee says, all the while noting that drones have human operators as well. They’re just stationed thousands of miles from their aircraft. “It always boils down to human versus human.”

Photo: Spencer Ackerman

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/08/executive-plane-becomes-flying-spy-in-afghanistan/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WiredDangerRoom+%28Blog+-+Danger+Room%29&utm_content=Google+Reader#ixzz0wJm676pE

[buglerbilly]

USAF Realignment Affects 12,000 Airmen, 650 Planes

By BRUCE ROLFSEN

Published: 22 Aug 2010 11:46

A wide-ranging shakeup will find the U.S. Air Force retiring 650 planes and shifting the jobs of at least 12,000 airmen.

The shuffle consolidates F-22 Raptor units, assigns up to 350 F-35 Lightning IIs to four bases, retires F-16 Fighting Falcons as F-35s replace them, establishes a home base for the service's fleet of 37 MC-12W Liberty reconnaissance planes and names the U.S. Air National Guard wings that will be home to 38 C-27J cargo aircraft.

The big winners are Hill Air Force Base, Utah, and Luke Air Force Base, Ariz., two of the largest F-16 Fighting Falcon bases. The installations will get F-35s to replace the F-16s they're set to lose.

The only loser is Holloman Air Force Base, N.M., which has to send its F-22s to Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., which also flies the stealth jet.

USAF officials announced the realignment July 29 after months of study and lobbying by lawmakers and communities looking to save or expand their local bases.

A summary of the basing decisions:

F-16 Fighting Falcon

Holloman gains an F-16 training mission to replace the F-22s departing. Two F-16 squadrons take the place of the two F-22 squadrons the base loses.

Standing up F-16 training should begin in October 2011 and be complete in July 2013.

The southern New Mexico base continues as home to training for MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper aircrews as well as hosting fighter training for the German Air Force.

F-22 Raptor

Air Force officials went on record last year in support of putting the F-22s together. They argued that consolidation would save money and better align the fighter force since Congress has capped the number of F22s at 188 and nearly 250 F-15s and F-16s are headed to the boneyard.

Holloman became a candidate to relinquish its F-22s because its role of training pilots and sensor operators of remote-controlled aircraft grew.

The new plan calls for one of Holloman's two F-22 squadrons to move to Tyndall, already home to the service's lone F-22 training squadron. The new Tyndall squadron will fly operational missions. The Air Force did not say which F-22 squadron will move.

Adding an F-22 squadron to Tyndall assuages lawmakers who were concerned that Tyndall - with just one flying squadron - would be vulnerable in future drawdowns.

The second Holloman F-22 squadron will be deactivated. Six planes each will go to F-22 units at Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Va., and Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., gets the remaining pair of F-22s for combat training and testing.

F-35 Lightning II

Three existing F-16 bases will be among the first installations to transition to flying F-35s.

Gaining operational Joint Strike Fighters are the Burlington (Vt.) Air Guard Station and Hill in Utah.

The first F-35s should arrive at Hill in July 2013 with the initial squadron complete in 2015. Standing up two other squadrons will begin in 2015 and continue through 2019.

Burlington is expected to get its F-35s starting October 2018 and complete the transition by December of that year.

Luke, near Phoenix, picks up three F-35 training squadrons and phases out its F-16 training role, which moves to Holloman.

Luke's first squadron will be formed in August 2013. All three squadrons should be flying by October 2017.

The F-16s no longer needed at the bases will be retired.

Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., continues to be first stop for F-35 pilots. At Eglin, pilots and crew chiefs for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps will get their first exposure to the jets. The 33rd Fighter Wing at Eglin will get 58 JSFs split between training squadrons for each of the services, the Air Force confirmed in a July 28 statement.

Once Air Force pilots complete their Eglin training, they'll move to Luke for follow-on training specific to the Air Force version of the jet.

Several more bases were candidates for the F-35s' first round of basing. Missing out were Boise Air National Guard Station, Idaho; Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho; Shaw Air Force Base/McEntire Joint National Guard Base, S.C.; and Tucson Air Guard Station, Ariz.

With the Air Force committed to buying 1,763 JSFs, there are still plenty of jets available for later basing decisions.

MC-12W

The reconnaissance mission at Beale Air Force Base in northern California expands with the recommendation to locate the service's operational MC-12W fleet there. Beale already is home to the U-2 Dragon Lady and the RQ-4 Global Hawk.

The recommendation does not change the training location for MC-12W crews. They will still fly out of the Mississippi Air National Guard's Key Field.

A final decision on stationing MC-12Ws at Beale can't be made until an environmental assessment is complete.

The Air Force intends to buy 37 of the twin-propeller planes. The military version of the commercial Beechcraft King Air 350 is outfitted with camera pods and other intelligence collection gear, and flies with a crew of two pilots and two sensor operators.

Just how many of the MC-12Ws will be at Beale isn't known. With the exception of planes needed for training, all MC-12Ws are flying missions over Iraq and Afghanistan. They won't return to the U.S. until commanders no longer require the planes.

Because there is no home base for the planes and crews, airmen trained to fly the MC-12W are sent back to their old units once their six-month deployments are finished.

The constant churn makes it difficult to establish a cadre of experienced aircrew members. Establishing a permanent home is a step toward treating MC-12W assignments the same as other tours.

Several bases competed with Beale for the MC-12W prize. Drawing blanks: Altus Air Force Base, Okla.; Key Field; Langley; Robins Air Force Base. Ga.; and Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo.

C-27J

The July 29 announcement narrows down which installations could become the initial home of the C-27J, a twin-engine transport intended to fly Army supply missions and provide airlift for state National Guard units.

Potential sites for operational C-27J squadrons are Boise and Great Falls International Airport, Mont. Training squadron sites are Key Field and Mansfield Lahm Regional Airport in Ohio.

The service won't announce basing decisions until site survey and environmental assessments are complete, likely in 2011.

[buglerbilly]

Donley Pushes Major Space Changes

By Colin Clark Thursday, August 26th, 2010 6:03 pm



With the stroke of a pen Air Force Secretary Mike Donley engaged one of the most complex bureaucratic challenges faced by the service: how to buy, build and manage satellites and the rockets that move them into space. Donley, seeking to clarify what experts say was a confusing and sometimes ineffective system, ordered several important changes to how the Air Force’s space community is organized and to who makes what decisions.

In perhaps the biggest change declared in his memo, Donley vested the service’s undersecretary, Erin Conaton, with the responsibility for guiding all space policy activities overseen by the Air Force. The assistant secretary for acquisition will now lead all space acquisition, combining traditional fighter, bomber and other service acquisition with space.

In a separate report, the man who recommended the changes to Donley (one of the country’s most respected military and intelligence space experts) Richard McKinney, said the goal of the changes is to leave the Air Force with a “very visible and effective” focal point for space management.

Conaton knows relatively little about space but is a tireless worker. Given the unique nature of most space acquisition, she will need all the best advice she can get.

Donley also created a new space board, run by the undersecretary and the vice chief of staff, to manage interservice issues and the intricate and long-troubled relations between the military space community and its intelligence counterparts at the DNI, CIA and NRO. The National Security Space Office originally created to provide expert skills for both the NRO and the Air Force but now a rump service entity, will be melded into McKinney’s office of deputy undersecretary office. McKinney’s office will continue to serve as the service’s primary center of expertise on space, advising the new board and the undersecretary.

One of the most delicate policy issues the Air Force must deal with over the next 18 months is the best path forward on the international front for managing space debris and the question of who is responsible and what they must do when satellites collide or are destroyed.

[This story should be updated tomorrow when we get more reaction and analysis of these changes from summertime Washington.]

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/08/26/donley-pushes-major-space-changes/#ixzz0xlW8MNHT

[buglerbilly]

Global Strike Command on track, its leader says

By John Andrew Prime • jprime@gannett.com • August 28, 2010

The Air Force's newest major command, Air Force Global Strike Command, is on track for fall progression to its final stage of standup, full operational capability, its leader says.

The new command, in the former 8th Air Force headquarters building on Barksdale Air Force Base, but also staffing temporary trailers across the 22,000-acre facility, celebrated its first birthday here Aug. 7. It began about nine months before its debut as a provisional unit in January 2009 at Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, D.C.

Since August 2009, Lt. Gen. Frank Klotz says, "we have been developing the command in a very step-by-step methodical fashion. On that first day, Aug. 7, we had roughly 50 permanently assigned individuals. Right now, we have 700 permanently assigned individuals to the headquarters. By Oct. 1, we'll have 800, en route to our full complement of 900 officers, NCOs and government civilians assigned to this headquarters."

Over the intervening months, the command grew by careful steps, assuming and testing command and control avenues that had been used by predecessor commands. On Dec. 1, it assumed control of the nation's intercontinental ballistic missile forces, in three wings in three states under 20th Air Force. On Feb. 1, it took control of the nation's strategic bombing forces, at three bases in three states under the Barksdale-based 8th Air Force.

Oct. 1 is the start of the federal fiscal year.

"That's a good target goal," Klotz said. "We'll have the vast majority of our people on board, and we'll assume responsibility for our own 'checkbook' at that time. One of the rules of fiscal or financial management in the U.S. government is you can't change ownership of the checkbook in the middle of the fiscal year. Since we stood up or assumed responsibility for the ICBMs and bombers in the middle of the year, we have been working closely with their former parent organizations on the financial side. We'll have that on Oct. 1, and we'll have responsibility for developing our inputs to the future Air Force programs and future Air Force financial plan at that time."

The command also will hold its first incarnation of what under predecessor units had been called a Bombing and Navigation Competition, or "Bomb Comp."

Now called the Global Strike Challenge, it will match not only bombing, maintenance, munition and security wings and squadrons, but missileers as well. Competition among the units began in recent months. Official score-posting will be announced Nov. 15-18 at Barksdale, ending with the Global Strike Challenge technology symposium. That will focus on current and future concepts essential to the command's mission.

"One of things we value as a command is exquisite technical and weapons system expertise," Klotz said. "One of the ways in which we achieve that excellence ... is through competition. As our air crews, our missile crews, our maintainers, our security forces, are competing against one another to represent their bases, they are working overtime to master their weapons system in all of its intricate details. They become centers of excellence within their particular units. They become better airmen in terms of performing the task they have responsibility for.

"More importantly their excellence spills over and rubs off onto all the other members of their unit and all the other residents of their base. Competition, people working overtime, going the extra mile, putting in that extra effort to be the 'best of the best,' raises the level of excellence and expertise across the entire command. That's the fundamental, underlying purpose of competition and Global Strike Challenge."

Klotz is a member of the Air Force Academy Class of 1973, which produced about two dozen general officers, including Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz, Air Education Training Command head Gen. Steve Lorenz and Air Force Special Operations Command chief Lt. Gen. Don Wooster.

But the name perhaps best associated with that class is Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger III, the pilot who captured headlines and the popular imagination when he successfully ditched US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson River off Manhattan, New York City, on Jan. 15, 2009, saving the lives of all 155 passengers and crew.

Klotz was one of those who watched and marveled there had been no loss of life, thanks to piloting skills and spontaneous, practiced rescue efforts by the first responders and ferry operators near the ditching site.

"That was a remarkable feat of airmanship, a feat that could only be carried out by someone who had honed and perfected their piloting skills over a long period of time," he said, adding that he had "obviously, great pride that a member of the (Academy) Class of '73 was piloting that aircraft."

Though Klotz is at his first Barksdale posting, he is no stranger to the area. He was born in Lubbock, Texas, and attended middle school in Alexandria when his father was stationed at the former England Air Force Base.

His father also was stationed at Barksdale, then was transferred to Texas, Klotz said.

"If my mom and dad had decided to have a family just a little earlier, I would have been born in Shreveport or Bossier City."
So he wasn't surprised by the warm reception he and his people have been given by a community that has long been supportive of the military.

"The welcome has been almost overwhelming in terms of the way our people in AFGSC have found places to live, schools to put their children in and have been readily accepted as members of this community," he said.

But he wouldn't commit to saying he'd settle here when the day came to trade his military hat for that of a retired officer in the civilian community.

"The problems of today are sufficient unto themselves," he said. "I'm developing all my energy, time and attention to standing up AF Global Strike Command and ensuring its mission and its airmen are well taken care of."

[buglerbilly]

U.S. Air Force Looks To Replace Aging T-38s

By MICHELLE TAN

Published: 30 Aug 2010 08:56

The next approach to teaching future U.S. Air Force pilots - be it a jet, a simulator or a mix of both - must be reasonably priced but do as good of a job as the aging trainer it will replace, according to the official in charge of analyzing the options.

Fighter and bomber pilots have been learning to fly some version of the T-38 Talon for the last 50 years and the time has come to find a successor, said Gen. Stephen Lorenz, outgoing commander of Air Education and Training Command at Randolph Air Force Base, Texas.

"It takes years to procure a new trainer, so we need to start the process now," Lorenz said. "The T-38 is getting old."

A draft of the analysis underway by Air Force Training Command should be ready by the end of the year, according to Dave McDonald, who is leading the effort as program requirements manager for the advance trainer replacement program.

"We're looking at performance, operational effectiveness, operational suitability, the cost to meet your capability needs, at advantages and disadvantages," McDonald said. "Cost and capabilities are the big two, I would say."

McDonald, a former T-38 instructor pilot, and his team are looking at jets and simulators already on the market and those in development; they have asked for and received input from the defense industry.

"We need to build a new trainer that is economical, efficient and effective," Lorenz said.

About five years ago, the Air Force upgraded its 500 T-38s with digital and glass cockpit displays, similar to those in operational jets. The jets are now designated T-38Cs.

Despite the improvements, though, the Talons are showing their age, which averages 44 years.

Intended to fly 7,000 hours, the typical T-38C has logged 15,000 hours. By 2017, which is when officials expect the alternative to the T-38C to reach initial operational capability, the flight hours will be up to 17,500.

"We're working hard on this," Lorenz said. "We're trying to follow due procedure so that someday soon the Air Force will be able to procure a new trainer … because this will be a 30-year decision when we buy this trainer."

[buglerbilly]

DATE:31/08/10

SOURCE:Flight International

USAF invests in C-5 upgrade

By Stephen Trimble

An unfortunate flock of four storks with roughly 1.9m (6ft) wingspans crossed into the path of a Lockheed Martin C-5 on take-off from Incirlik air base in Turkey earlier this year. For the four-engined C-5, sucking even four large fowls into a single engine is normally an unremarkable event, as its three remaining turbofans provide easily enough power to bring the aircraft back to base.

But this incident proved unusual for what did not happen, inadvertently revealing the product of an $11.7 billion investment to dramatically improve Lockheed's giant airlifter.


The USAF's C-5Bs are more reliable than C-5As, but out of commission an average 35%. Picture: USAF

VIBRATION

As the storks sucked into the engine nacelle, the flightcrew noticed a "slight vibration". The engine's throttle was quickly pulled back to idle, but the crew expected a flameout. The engine, although damaged, never shut down.

"It was still producing thrust the whole time," marvels Capt Cory Damon, a C-5 evaluator pilot at Dover AFB, Delaware.

Such experiences may be relatively common among users of modern, large turbofan engines, but not in the US Air Force's C-5 Galaxy community until last year.

Twelve months ago, the USAF started flying the first of three re-engined and upgraded C-5Ms on operational missions.

The bird strike at Incirlik happened to involve one of those three C-5Ms, each now powered by four General Electric CF6-80C2s, which are at least a full generation of technology beyond the legacy C-5 fleet's GE TF39s.

"We've always had an airframe that was so much more capable, but we were limited by the engines," says Lt Col Michael Semo, chief of the C-5M integration office at Dover. "Now we have an engine that matches the capability of the airframe."

Since its debut, the new fleet of pre-production C-5M models has quickly made a favourable impression among pilots and maintenance crews, even as it has added a new layer of complexity to the USAF's calculations for determining the appropriate size and mix of strategic airlifters in the future.


Lack of light in the C-5B cargo compartment "could be a little bit of a hazard". Picture: USAF

Some new aircraft designs wait years to begin operations in combat zones despite being declared ready for service. The C-5M has received no such luxury. Within its first year of operations, the C-5M has completed a single sortie that broke 41 aviation records and participated in two real-world surges of equipment and troops into Afghanistan, with the latest airlift spike ending a month ago.

It is an airlifter that first started flying 41 years ago, but is now enjoying a second wind. The oldest version in the fleet is the C-5A model, and the 59 left in service are unavailable for missions due to maintenance and repairs more often than they are not. The 49 C-5Bs - manufactured about 25 years ago - are more reliable, but are out of commission on average by 35%.

The key factor driving the C-5's poor reliability record is the TF39 engine, a first-generation turbofan that represented a major leap in propulsion technology during the late 1960s, but falls well below modern standards. USAF officials have complained each TF39 must be removed from the wing for overhaul every 1,000h. The reliability of modern turbofans is at least an order of magnitude greater.

During the most recent, month-long surge, when two C-5Ms flew a combined 22 missions from Rota, Spain to three locations in Afghanistan, delivering about half the equipment for a newly inserted combat brigade, the improved reliability showed. Only one of the C-5M's 22 missions left Rota behind schedule due to a maintenance problem, Semo says.

The same surge also involved a combination of eight C-5A/Bs. Despite outnumbering C-5Ms by four times on the ramp at Rota, the C-5A/Bs delivered less cargo despite flying one more flight than the upgraded C-5M. Most tellingly, USAF mobility planners felt obliged to assign eight C-5A/Bs to complete a mission that could be performed by two C-5Ms.

Such performance may redefine how the C-5 fleet should be perceived. The C-5 is by far the USAF's largest airlifter, capable of carrying 50t more payload than the Boeing C-17. The C-5 is also the only aircraft that can carry the army's 74t mobile scissors bridge. But the fleet has been plagued by reliability problems since entering service in 1969. So far, the C-5M has shown greater payload performance with a fraction of the maintenance burden.

The M-model "really makes the C-5 what it was envisioned to be when it was designed", says Capt Matt Jaeger, chief of pilot standards evaluation at Dover AFB.

Replacing the troublesome TF39 provided the greatest improvement, but the C-5M programme funded 70 other reliability enhancements. Most of the list of upgrades are not visible to anybody but the maintainers.


A visible change in the C-5M upgrade is the addition of fluorescent lighting. Picture: USAF

HEALTH DIAGNOSTICS

A key example cited by Semo is an improved health diagnostic system, which is enabled by the even more significant upgrade to transition the C-5's electrical systems from analogue to digital format.

For the C-5A/Bs, a problem as simple as fixing a wheel brake could ground the aircraft for several hours, as maintainers sometimes needed to pull all 24 brake hubs to find the pair that was broken. It is a relatively simple repair job, but often the "crew would have to go into crew rest" before it was complete, Semo says, which led to even longer delays.

The C-5M's digitally based diagnostic system tells the maintainers exactly where to find the faulty brakes. "With the B-model that would take at least six hours," Damon says. "But with the -M , it's the first place you look."

Perhaps the most visible change among the C-5M upgrades is a new fluorescent lighting system in the cargo compartment. "The 'B' could be a little bit of a hazard with the amount of light in the cargo compartment," Jaeger says.

The next stage for the C-5M programme is ramping up production to convert the rest of the 49 C-5Bs. The first production version of the C-5M is scheduled for delivery before 1 October.

EXCESS CAPACITY

Meanwhile, the USAF is struggling to balance what it considers an excess of capacity in its strategic airlifter fleet.

The USAF acquired the Boeing C-17 to replace a fleet of 270 Lockheed C-141 Starlifters. Including 43 C-17s added by Congress since 2007, the USAF's C-17 fleet will add up to 222, with one aircraft lost to a crash in early August. Although the C-17 fleet is smaller, the Boeing airlifter can carry more than twice the cargo of the C-141.

In addition, the USAF also continues to lease the Antonov An-124, which can haul eight mine-resistant ambush protection vehicles compared with only five inside the C-5.

According to USAF statistics, the combination of 111 C-5s and 222 C-17s provides a capability to move nearly 36 million ton miles per day, but the service needs capacity to transport a maximum of 32.7 million ton miles daily.

To rebalance the fleet, the USAF has asked Congress to repeal a law banning the service from retiring any C-5As. Specifically, the USAF wants to retire 17 C-5As next year and five more in fiscal year 2012, slashing the A-model fleet by more than one-third. So far, lawmakers have been reluctant to allow any C-5A retirements, as certain bases, such as Westover AFB in Massachusetts, now depend on the aircraft's presence to justify their existence.

The C-5M's improved performance may complicate this debate by adding a new dimension. In 2007, the USAF decided to remove the C-5A fleet from the re-engining and reliability enhancement programme (RERP) after Lockheed's cost projections had grown by 58%.

The cost overrun followed a similar budget fiasco for the C-5 avionics modernisation programme, which is required for the Galaxy fleet to continue to operate in controlled airspace and as a precursor to the RERP upgrades.


The USAF's C-17s (above) and C-5s can move almost 36 million ton miles per day. Picture: USAF

[buglerbilly]

Northrop Drops MP-RTIP For Joint Stars

Sep 7, 2010



By Amy Butler

Northrop Grumman is shifting its strategy in proposing upgrades to keep the U.S. Air Force E-8C Joint Stars intelligence aircraft alive.

Last year, Senate appropriators cited a $5.5 billion price to outfit the 17-aircraft airborne ground surveillance (AGS) fleet with new engines, provide a major radar replacement and add defenses. Although Northrop Grumman officials say that figure was bloated, they have moved toward a lower-cost approach for Joint Stars improvements.

The new strategy, focusing on a different sensor suite, comes as the Air Force is in the midst of a study on how to handle the AGS mission in the future. Options include proceeding with the E-8C as is, upgrading it or using a Boeing 737-based design. Preliminary results for the ground moving-target indicator (GMTI) analysis of alternatives, being conducted by Air Combat Command, should be ready in March 2011. But shifts requiring near-term funding could be noted around the end of the year, in time for inclusion into the Fiscal 2012 budget request.

The major change is to the sensor upgrade plan. Previously, Northrop Grumman was pushing a replacement of the legacy APY-7 with the developmental Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program (MP-RTIP) scalable, active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar. A Northrop Grumman/Raytheon team encountered problems developing new “concurrent” modes for the Air Force on MP-RTIP, and it is late for introduction onto the Global Hawk unmanned aerial system (Aerospace DAILY, June 22). MP-RTIP also will be used by NATO for its AGS mission.

The proposal now is to mount two 1 X 8-ft. AESAs on the E-8C’s forward fuselage (one on each side), according to Stephen Pauly, Northrop’s director for Joint Stars development and modernization. The antennas would be based on the radar technology used for the F-22 and F-35 aircraft, he says.

MP-RTIP was designed to allow operators not to “break track” on a GMTI target while using the same array to snap a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) image. Currently, this is a problem for the APY-7, which sometimes takes minutes away from a ground track to execute a SAR request. Pauly says use of the three sensors — the two cheek arrays and the APY-7 — could be geared to generate the effect of concurrent operations. The APY-7 could be for continuous ground-track intelligence collection, while targets of interest could then be imaged by the cheek arrays, he says, thus not requiring a break in GMTI operations. These arrays also could have inherent capabilities for communications.

A formal cost estimate for the cheek arrays is not yet finished, but Pauly says it would require roughly $1 billion for the Joint Stars fleet. Another $900 million is needed to complete the re-engining program for Joints Stars. And the company is proposing an upgraded receiver and exciters for the APY-7, at about $500 million. Finally, data-link improvements and equipment needed to comply with air traffic management standards would cost less than $300 million, he says.

Photo: USAF

[buglerbilly]

BAE Systems to Pitch Hawk for USAF Pilot Training Program

By KRISTIN QUINN

Published: 8 Sep 2010 16:10

BAE Systems announced today its intention to pursue the U.S. Air Force's Advanced Pilot Training Family of Systems, more commonly known as the T-X project, which is intended to replace the aging T-38 system and train fifth-generation pilots.

The company intends to pursue the T-X program with its Hawk Advanced Training System, currently in use by the Royal Air Force and in more than 18 countries, with a total of more than 2.5 million flying hours. "Hawk is the lowest cost, fully-integrated, advanced training system available now," Samuel Cole, BAE System's vice president of aerospace solutions, said during a briefing at The National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

Cole said in order for the Air Force to meet its desired Initial Operational Capability date of 2017, it would have to select a system already available. He added the Air Force has told BAE Systems it intends to purchase off-the-shelf. However, Cole said specific requirements and whether the purchase will be truly off-the-shelf won't be known until after the Air Force completes its ongoing analysis of alternatives (AoA), due in March, and issues formal requirements.

Ian Reason, BAE's director of business development for military air sector training, said many companies will pursue the project with a focus on the aircraft, and emphasized that the T-X is about selecting a family of training systems. "The objective is mission-qualified pilots at the lowest cost," Reason said. "It isn't about going to war, it's about training pilots to go to war most effectively and it's the system that has to be optimized. We've got a great aircraft, but we've got an even better training system that pulls it together."

Cole said the Hawk system integrates multiple levels of training, including laptop devices, mission planning sessions, ground simulators and flying the mission live with an instructor. "Warfare of the future isn't just about flying an airplane," he said. "It's about managing the complex systems that are available to you."

Larry Prior, executive vice president for service sectors, said BAE Systems intends to prime the contract through its U.S. company, BAE Systems Inc., and will also pursue U.S. partnerships, which it hopes to announce within a few months. The company also intends to open a U.S. production facility, the details of which would be determined by its selection of partners and suppliers.

Although BAE Systems is not yet disclosing pricing data, Cole said the company is confident it can offer the lowest price because no development would be required to meet the Air Force's 2017 IOC date. "This is not a technology that we hope to develop," Cole said. "This is what's being delivered to the Royal Air Force as we speak."

[buglerbilly]

Tough Choices

Unrealistic Expectations, Budget Issues, Unclear Mission Face Future Air Force

By JOHN REED

Published: 13 September 2010

With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan expected to draw down in the coming years, taking defense budgets down with them, the U.S. Air Force will continue facing tough choices over which weapons to buy, to keep and to cut, according to industry analysts and former Air Force officials.

"Frankly, to achieve any efficiency it'll have to be broader than what's already been announced publicly" under the aegis of Defense Secretary Robert Gates' effort to save $100 million in overhead costs in the coming years, said Mark Gunzinger, of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

"The Air Force is in a tough spot," needing to recapitalize everything from tankers to bombers and to complete its purchase of 1,763 F-35 Lightning II strike fighters. To do this, the service must look at all costs from procurement to manpower, and how they support the type of wars the Pentagon expects to fight in the future.

"The obvious question the Air Force will have to ask is: are they moving towards a balanced force in the future, are they buying too much short-range strike and not enough long-range strike" weapons to fight nations with advanced air defenses and the ability to keep U.S. ships and aircraft away, Gunzinger said.

"If the Air Force continues on the direction it is [buying lots of relatively short-range F-35s], then it's going to be increasingly incapable of operations in non-permissive environments, and that's very troubling."

Couple this with the fact that the massive surge in military spending over the last decade largely bypassed the air service in favor of the ground forces and the air service faces the possibility of further shrinkage as its fighter fleet ages with no one-for-one replacement, according to Teal Group aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia.

"They missed the big uptick in defense spending and will have to find [savings through] a mix of force structure and legacy fleet refurbishment" cuts, Aboulafia said. "We didn't recapitalize the traditional big power equipment. We spent an awful lot on the immediate requirements on" fighting a counterinsurgency. "There's a feeling now that we missed an [acquisition] cycle, especially in the Air Force."

However, since the beleaguered service has already seen numerous recapitalization programs cut short over the last two years, from the next-generation bomber to CSAR-X and the F-22 Raptor, the Air Force has few new programs to chop.

"There's already an awful lot of dead programs and failed plans," Aboulafia said.

This means that older jets, such as B-1 Lancers, F-16 Falcons, F-15 Eagles, A-10 Warthogs and even the E-8 Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System fleet, may now be vulnerable, he said.

Just as vulnerable are "the rather ambitious and lavish expectations of upgrade cash" needed to keep hundreds of aging jets relevant, Aboulafia said.

"You're talking about some pretty impressive programs here; AESA radars, targeting systems, all kinds of structural refurbishments, none of those are set in stone."

Former Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper says he's not worried about capability loss because the service's new planes are far better than the ones they replace.

"With the F-35, there is no need to do a one-for-one replacement with airplanes that are very much more capable than the ones we have right now, and what that ratio ultimately is is very much dependent on budget and timing," said the retired general. "We just have to be mindful of the fact that fleets are going to be smaller; the UAVs will take over some of the missions but they can't do it all."

In fact, maintaining an aging fleet could begin to suck money away from other priorities.

"At a certain point, it becomes totally uneconomical as we've proven with the tankers to keep the entire fleet alive," said Jumper. "At some point the fleet ages out, airplanes become unsafe, and that's what we have to pay attention to."

"We've been here before," said Jumper, who says the service should emphasize critical weapons for the future, such as a new long-range bomber, in a way that can fit into shrinking budgets.

"Right now there is no next-generation airplane of any kind in development and the next-generation bomber is the one that needs immediate attention, and I think that goes along with [Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz's] priorities," said the former service chief.

The remaining new programs that could be cut include the C-5B portion of Lockheed's C-5 Galaxy Reliability Enhancement and Reengining Program; Northrop Grumman's RQ-4 Global Hawk drone, which has recently come under criticism from Air Force leaders due to cost growth and delivery delays; the MQ-X next-generation UAV program; and "whatever space programs come out alive," Aboulafia said.

While Gates, who has directed the slashing of numerous Air Force programs and at one point took away acquisition authority from the service on the KC-X tanker program, is set to retire next year, the analyst does not see an opportunity for the service to simply wait for Gates to leave the Pentagon.

"They've bet on waiting Gates out before and that didn't save them," Aboulafia said. "It's now looking as though Gates is far from a worst-case scenario for the Air Force. He's starting to look like an honest broker who is trying to preserve defense in the face of a rising tide of budget hawks."

The defense secretary is "all too aware that the shifting political winds" now have even politicians on the right calling for more drastic defense spending cuts, added the analyst.

All of this lays the groundwork for a potentially smaller Air Force as the decade pans out.

"In terms of drastic changes [to the service's core missions], I'm not so sure," Aboulafia said. "But in terms of shrinkage, that's definitely an issue; in other words, the Air Force could become a smaller version of its current self."

However, Lexington Group analyst Loren Thompson is not convinced that Gates' widely publicized efforts to slash $100 billion from the Pentagon's coffers in the coming years will survive long enough after he leaves to hurt any of the few large Air Force programs that remain or drastically shrink the service.

"There's not much left to the Air Force modernization programs, so the service will probably turn to modest cuts and salami slicing rather than targeting some program for termination," said Thompson. This means that funds could be shifted from development to production accounts, or the service could delay buying spare parts until they are actually needed and consolidate the number of maintenance sites for certain aircraft.

This is in line with what Schwartz said during a recent taping of This Week in Defense News, where he noted that the service will look to trim the cost of higher headquarters staffs or consolidate civil engineering services and certain types of maintenance facilities in order to trim costs.

"Case in point, five locations was too many for the number of [F-22s] we have, so these kinds of efforts end up saving dollars, make us more efficient and I would argue make us more capable," said Schwartz referring to how the service has consolidated F-22 maintenance facilities.

"You can save a lot of the money that Gates is looking for simply by adjusting assumptions about what will be needed and about what kind of spares will be needed and how many personnel will be needed" at certain sites to support programs like the F-35.

[buglerbilly]

Air Force to Increase Deployment Time

September 12, 2010

Air Force News|by Jon Hanson

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE, Texas -- Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz announced a change to the air and space expeditionary force rotational baseline from 120 to 179 days for the active component.

He said the revised construct will increase predictability and stability for affected Airmen and their families, while providing better support to combatant commanders by increasing continuity at deployed locations.

"In the two years the Tempo Band construct has been in existence, the number of Airmen deploying for 120 days has steadily decreased," General Schwartz said. "Since Airmen in Tempo Band 'A' expected to deploy for 120 days but were frequently tasked for 179-day deployments, I saw no reason to maintain a 120-day baseline."

Previously, the Air Force used five tempo bands, ranging from "A" through "E." With the change, the Air Force will move Tempo Band "A" unit type codes and associated personnel to Tempo Band "B." Incorporating a 1-to-4 deploy-to-dwell time, the change results in six months of deployed time for Airmen and 24 months at home.

Revising the baseline also provides a single battle rhythm for all Airmen, regardless of functional area. The difference between the remaining tempo bands is the deploy-to-dwell time, ranging from 1-to-4 to 1-to-1.

Because of the complexity of changing the baseline, officials said it will take until October 2012 before all deployments are six months.

Expeditionary combat support Airmen will begin the transition in January 2011, with a five-month deployment. Remaining deployment vulnerability periods will vary between five and six months.

Combat Air Force units transition to the new baseline beginning this month. They previously were in an "enabler" category at a 1-to-3 deploy-to-dwell time. Those units will move to Tempo Band "C," remaining at a 1-to-3 deploy-to-dwell time, but will see an increase from 12 to 18 months at home station between deployments.

"Ultimately, this is good for the Air Force mission, our Airmen and their families," said Col. James Horton, the director of AEF and personnel operations at the Air Force Personnel Center. "While the deployment time is longer, it also means the downtime is longer.

"This change is meant to reflect a more realistic and consistent deployment outlook," he said. "By better managing our wartime operations tempo means we can provide our Airmen and their families the greatest level of stability and predictability."

© Copyright 2010 Air Force News. All rights reserved.

[buglerbilly]

Bomber Focus Shifts From Nukes

By Colin Clark Monday, September 13th, 2010 2:16 pm



Be vigorous in negotiating contracts, keep pushing for acquisition improvements and, above all, remember that “every dollar is an Air Force dollar, every dollar is a taxpayer dollar” Air Force Secretary Mike Donley told several thousand attendees at the annual Air Force Association conference.

“As we continue to strengthen our acquisition workforce, our on-going tasks are to be better negotiators, to know our internal business imperatives, to understand our contracts, to know our industrial base, and to respect that every dollar is an Air Force dollar, every dollar is a taxpayer dollar,” Donley said.

The secretary offered a bit more granularity in his speech about one of the most important acquisition efforts of the next 20 years — long range strike. LRS will not be focused, as it has been in the past, on being able to deliver nuclear weapons. And it will not be a high-tech, push-the-envelope system like the B-2.

“This time around, while recognizing the continued need for the nuclear mission, we’re approaching LRS capabilities mainly from conventional perspectives, where they are most likely to be used. And we’re focused on developing a higher confidence acquisition strategy with known technologies, a fleet size large enough that we can flexibly operate and sustain it over a 30-year life span, but not so large that we cannot afford it, and with unit cost as a key factor. And this time around, we also recognize the value of other, complimentary capabilities in the LRS family of systems and the need to prioritize and synchronize our investments,” Donley said.

He said the service would be “cautious not to repeat the painful experience of previous Air Force bomber programs: narrowly focused capabilities, high risk technologies, and high costs contributing to affordability problems, leading to program cancellations, or low inventories.”

Donley also offered several examples of ways the service has brought new capabilities to the field without the usual 12 to 15 years.

“Our Rapid Capabilities Office, established in 2003, is carrying forward a legacy of streamlined acquisition approaches used idn the development of the F-117 and other classified efforts of the past, now adapted to 21st century technology and organizational constructs.

“Finally, the Operationally Responsive Space office, established less than three years ago, is developing both satellite and launch capabilities specifically focused on rapid augmentation and reconstitution of space based capabilities in support of Combatant Commanders at the speed of need,” he said.

He also offered some examples of how airmen have come up with quick-fix acquisition solutions:

At Mildenhall’s 100th Maintenance Squadron, maintainers purchased commercially available, off-the-shelf ‘cherry pickers’ called Work Assist Vehicles to use in place of the bulky B-4 stands typically used for aircraft inspections. These vehicles are less than half the cost of the B-4 and save an estimated 30–40% in time.

At Cannon, the 27th Special Operations Wing is modifying MC-130W’s with a Precision Strike Package, referred to as “Dragon Spear” bringing not only mobility, but integrated ISR, armed overwatch, and close air support for SOF teams. The first aircraft delivered in 10-months, the fleet of 12 will be delivered by the end of next calendar year. The acquisition methodology yielded an 85% savings from the initial estimated costs.

At Whiteman, communicators developed in-house an Adaptable Communications Suite for B-2s. With a sensible use of internal and external resources, the ACS is taking half the time to field at less than 20% the cost of the initial contractor estimate.
Over the long haul, he pleaded with industry ” to help yourselves, and to help us, to be more efficient — so that we can buy more of what you make.“

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/09/13/nukes-not-focus-of-long-range-strike/#ixzz0zTHJSnGc

[buglerbilly]

Boeing, Northrop Duel Over GMTI Requirement

Sep 13, 2010



By Amy Butler
Washington

Amid Pentagon belt-tightening, Boeing and Northrop Grumman are offering dueling proposals in an attempt to capture what limited funds the U.S. Air Force may have to modernize its fleet of airborne ground-surveillance (AGS) intelligence collectors.

Boeing is going public with its proposal for a new aircraft to handle the Joint Stars fleet mission as the service is in the midst of an analysis of alternatives (AOA) to create a new architecture for collecting ground surveillance. Boeing’s idea is based largely on the Navy’s P-8A intel collector, a militarized commercial 737 that is now in development and has enjoyed high marks from the Navy on progress—a rarity among many recent military programs.

The company is offering a one-for-one replacement of the 17-aircraft J-Stars fleet with its new AGS aircraft concept for $5.5 billion. This is the same figure cited by Senate appropriators last year as the lowest price of upgrading the E-8C J-Stars with new engines, cockpit equipment and sensors, all required to meet future requirements.

Northrop Grumman, however, disputes that figure. And it is coming in with a revised proposal to add 1 X 8-ft. cheek array radars building from the company’s sensors designed for the F-22 and Joint Strike Fighter programs, says Stephen Pauly, director of J-Stars development and modernization.

As defense budgets flatten and Boeing faces waning demand for its C-17 and Ground-Based Midcourse Defense missile-shield products, the company is looking for new sources of long-term revenue. Chris Chadwick, president of Boeing Military Aircraft, says sales of the F-15 and F/A-18 lines are strong. But growth of the militarized 737 could potentially follow in the path of the company’s lucrative F/A-18, which evolved into the Super Hornet and the Growler electronic attack aircraft. “It is an incremental innovation of a franchise program that allows us to expand its market area . . . and leverage multiple investments. . . . The Air Force customer has been very receptive and very intrigued by the analysis that we have provided.”

In contrast, Northrop Grummanswitched its strategy in the past few months from proposing integration of the massive and expensive Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program (MP-RTIP) sensor onto the E-8C. The company is now pushing to keep the current APY-7 array in the under-fuselage canoe while adding the two cheek arrays. Without this new approach, the company would be left to lobby for an expensive upgrade to the E-8C in an effort to maintain its grip on the Air Force’s AGS market and to keep work at its Melbourne, Fla., facility. J-Stars is the only major program at that location.

While Boeing may have caught the Air Force’s interest with the 737 offer, persuading such a large institution to reverse course on its plans for the J-Stars fleet could prove challenging. The service has planned for years to replace the TF33-PW-102C engines with newer Pratt & Whitney JT8D-219s. This project enjoys support from a strong lobby in Congress that backs both Northrop Grumman and Pratt & Whitney. The Senate figure of $5.5 billion included cost estimates for the new engines, cockpit upgrades required for the aircraft to comply with air traffic management regulations, defensive systems and the MP-RTIP arrays scrapped by Northrop as too costly. The company now says that adding the cheek arrays, new engines and an upgraded receiver/exciter for the APY-7 will cost less than $3 billion.

The Air Force has yet to commit to a road map for the J-Stars mission. Air Combat Command is heading up an AOA that should be finished by spring. But key findings could be sent to headquarters by year-end if the command hopes to gain funding in the Fiscal 2012 budget request that will go to Congress in February.

Among the options for the aircraft component are leaving the J-Stars as is, upgrading the fleet or using the Boeing 737-based design. But a former senior defense official says the Air Force should also examine what the future ground moving-target indicator (GMTI) collection architecture should be above and beyond a one-for-one J-Stars replacement. This could include, potentially, new platforms and sensors. “There are folks who still associate the mission with a platform,” this official says. “This should be a GMTI AOA, not a Joint Stars AOA.” One alternative that could influence the outcome of an architecture study could be an unmanned airship, which could stay aloft for days or weeks in uncontested airspace collecting intelligence. “The question is: Do we take the next step” and look beyond simply upgrading, or replace the Joint Stars? the official asks.

The Air Force has been at a crossroads for years on how to proceed with GMTI intelligence collection. This is partly because GMTI is a relatively new mission, and it has been viewed as tactical support for soldiers. Moreover, the Air Force intel community was long steeped in a more strategic, Cold War mission. But the post 9/11 shift toward supporting tactical commanders could influence how the service shapes its GMTI requirements.

Lt. Gen. David Deptula—who is retiring from his post as the deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance—pushed to take a less platform-centric view of intel collectors, and he convened GMTI summits to review potential requirements. A successor for Deptula has yet to be named, and this official could heavily influence the direction taken on GMTI.

GMTI came into its own during the first Persian Gulf war, when the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (J-Stars) was initially deployed to prove the technology; ground commanders were impressed with the performance. Since then, the Air Force has fielded 17 J-Stars aircraft. The fleet is based on commercial 707-300 airframes that were refurbished to carry the 24-ft.-long APY-7 antenna and up to 18 battle managers.

The former senior defense official says that “absolutely [the Boeing proposal] should be considered as an option” as the Air Force weighs alternatives. “Now, the technology has opened up to where one ought to take a look at alternatives” to the earlier plans to simply upgrade Joint Stars.

Northrop Grumman seems to be reacting to the emergence of newer designs as well. A company decision to consider leaving the massive effort behind MP-RTIP for use only on the Global Hawk and NATO AGS is a major shift.

Boeing’s plan is to maintain as much commonality to the Navy P-8A as possible in its Air Force offering, including the use of the same sensor. The Air Force version will have a different name, the Advanced Airborne Ground-Surveillance System, says Jim Eisenhart, senior manager for airborne warning systems. This sensor is a follow-on to the Littoral Surveillance Radar System, which is flying on the P-3. The P-8A is based on the 737-800 with -900 wings; the AGS version would follow this model.

While the commonality is designed to be in line with the push by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to curb Pentagon spending, the Air Force typically does not buy platforms designed by the Navy. And Boeing will now have to compete with Northrop’s revamped strategy to upgrade Joint Stars.

The $5.5-billion figure cited for J-Stars modifications from senators presumes about 25 more years of service life. Eisenhart says the new 737-based aircraft could exceed that by about 15 years. “The wingbox and wings and tail section will easily handle that because they have been ruggedized for the Navy,” which will operate the P-8A as low as 500 ft. in the harsh environment above the ocean at times. The Air Force would also be able to tap into the worldwide logistics being established by the Navy for maintenance; commercial operations are also expected to be strong for the 737 for decades.

There are drawbacks to the plan to reengine Joint Stars. Based on the 707, the fleet faces diminishing manufacturer sources as commercial carriers have replaced their passenger versions. Additionally, the Air Force would be the only customer for the new Pratt & Whitney engines selected for the J-Stars, and a production line would need to be reestablished for this purchase. The engine is being built for ground use only at this time. “As soon as [the Air Force] buys those, they are going to go out of production,” Eisenhart says.

The 707 also hosts the AWACS and Rivet Joint reconnaissance and signals intelligence systems, all future opportunities for a 737-based design, Eisenhart says. However, those fleets have undergone consistent upgrades, and it may be a tough sell for the Pentagon, which is trying to adhere to Gates’s directive.

Since Boeing’s dual-sided AGS sensor grew out of a black program, the company did not provide much detail on its *capabilities. Eisenhart says it will “solve a lot of the challenges that Joint Stars has today,” and the sensor has the “*processing time” to handle the highly complex concurrent modes that tripped up MP-RTIP. Today, J-Stars operations have to “break track” with a target to collect an image; and software that allows MP-RTIP to simultaneously track targets and collect synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images of them was late and over budget for the Air Force. “You have to have the ability to do GMTI, which creates a certain power and frequency [requirement], so SAR at the same time creates challenges for whatever sensor array is out there.”

The AGS version would include the APY-10 multi-mode radar in the nose as well as the same electronic support measures as are on the E/A‑18G Growler. The P-8A will carry the MX 20 high-definition electro-optical/infrared/full-motion video sensor. Eisenhart says Boeing is conducting a trade study of potential sensors to see if this is the right sensor for the Air Force version, including possibly the Gorgon Stare wide-area surveillance pod now in development. The Air Force’s sensor ball of choice has been the Raytheon MTS-B, which is going on its Reaper unmanned aircraft fleet.

While Joint Stars has up to 18 operators supporting the battle management mission, the AGS would accommodate 10. Eisenhart says this is made possible by improvements in software applications that will reduce the manpower needed to do the job. Boeing is using internal R&D funding to pull iPhone type “apps” from the Air Force’s Block 40/45 AWACS upgrade program. These would help automate the messages for the Combined Air Operations Center and for shooters, including fighters and unmanned aerial system controllers. The Block 40/45 software has gone through flight testing, and the first aircraft will be inducted for modification in November, says Eisenhart.

The Navy P-8A will include a weapons bay with five internal weapons stations, four wing pylons and two fuselage pylons. The Air Force has not armed Joint Stars in the past; but this could provide the capability if desired for the service. Also, these areas could host specialized sensors or communications equipment, Eisenhart says.

Boeing officials are examining, for example, how the Senior-Year Electro-Optical System (Syers) multispectral intelligence sensor could be integrated into the weapons bay. Lawmakers have pushed to get an upgraded version of Syers, the MS-177 made by Goodrich, onto the J-Stars for experimentation. The system would provide high-resolution images of long-range targets; and because Syers has at least six collection bands, it can provide more data on a target more than a standard EO/IR system.

Eisenhart says AGS development would cost about $400 million, and cost of the entire effort is predictable. “This is a production program. This isn’t like we have to go do research and development and take risk.”

The first delivery would be in 2015, with one each to follow in 2016 and 2017. “We have the capability to build jets nearly as fast as the Air Force wants to buy them” because of excess capacity in the P-8 line, he says. Boeing has a separate International Trafficking in Arms Regulations-compliant line in Renton, Wash.

The Navy is buying 117 P-8A aircraft; base price is $200 million, not including the sensor. (The sensor price is *classified.)

Northrop Grumman, however, says it can achieve the same “concurrent mode” effect that was established through the MP-RTIP development by adding the two cheek arrays. The operational concept would be to use the APY-7 to conduct continuous ground track and then augment with SAR or other data collected by the cheek arrays, Pauly says, thus achieving concurrent capabilities with three arrays. The size of the 707 airframe and ground clearance prohibit the MP-RTIP from being installed at enough depth to provide the desired picture for some officials.

The current power generators on the J-Stars fleet will also be sufficient to power the sensors proposed for the upgrade. “The 707 is proving to be a strong workhorse for the military over the years with all of the different variants. . . . The 737 was originally designed to be a commercial aircraft with limited life,” Pauly says.

The new engines have been flying on a J-Stars test aircraft this summer, and he says they “showing the 17-20% fuel savings that we predicted.”

Through a Quick-Reaction Capability requested by the Pentagon to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Northrop Grumman is fielding a new satellite communications feature that will pipe GMTI data from J-Stars into the classified Internet; this allows operators on the ground with access to that network to use the data in near real time. Pauly says this upgrade cost less than $10 million and is being added to the entire fleet.

Eisenhart says Boeing can add this capability to its proposal.

Northrop Grumman also has completed a congressionally mandated series of flights of the MS-177, a Syers-3 camera, on Joint Stars. MS-177 includes seven bands of collection. But it adds a new capability not employed on the cameras used on the U-2, which are limited to collecting images only from a 90-deg. angle to the aircraft. In contrast, the MS-177 will allow the operator to image a target ahead of the aircraft and shoot repeated images of it. “You can fix on a point . . . and track on that point as you pass by,” collecting multiple images in succession, says Pauly. This is useful for real-time intelligence as well as forensics. If this system is placed on the remainder of the fleet, it will allow onboard operators to get “visual evidence” on a target rather than having to rely on offboard sensors, he says.

Northrop Grumman’s estimates for these J-Stars upgrades include about $900 million to reengine the fleet, roughly $500 million for the new receiver and exciters for the APY-7, $1 billion estimate for purchase and integration of the cheek arrays and up to $300 million for the air traffic management and battle management improvements.

Once USAF completes its AOA next year, the service will draw up an acquisition strategy, kicking off what is likely to be a contentious competition for a new approach to the U.S. AGS collection.

Photo: USAF

[buglerbilly]

DATE:14/09/10

SOURCE:Flight International

Northrop raises concerns with USAF acquisition process on JSTARS

By Stephen Trimble

Northrop Grumman officials are seeking ways to revitalise the E-8C JSTARS ground surveillance fleet now in competition with multi-mission surveillance aircraft, but have raised new concerns about the US Air Force's acquisition process.

USAF officials have not showed Northrop an initial capabilities document completed in 2009 that could launch a competition to replace or upgrade the E-8C, says Bill Moore, the company's director of sensor systems.

Although the service is not required to release the document to industry, it usually does, he adds.

"It would be beneficial for them to solicit feedback," Moore says. "The worst thing that could happen is you ignore it, but at least you have the feedback."

The E-8C's future is being threatened by a rival proposal submitted to the USAF from the Boeing P-8 aerial ground surveillance (AGS) aircraft, a derivative of the 737-based anti-submarine and patrol aircraft in development for the US and Indian navies.

Boeing submitted the P-8 AGS proposal last year after the USAF launched an analysis of alternatives seeking options for the ground moving target indicator capability currently provided by the E-8C's APY-7 radar.

The USAF started looking for options after Northrop's price tag to upgrade the E-8C with a new multi-platform radar technology insertion programme sensor reached $5.2 billion.

Boeing countered that it could deliver a fleet of new P-8 AGS for the same price, but also including the Raytheon advanced aerial sensor radar and weapons.

Meanwhile, Northrop is steadily working to improve the E-8C's surveillance capabilities. In August, the company completed four flights of the T-3 testbed aircraft equipped with the Goodrich MS-177 (previously SYERS-3), a new version of the multi-spectral sensor flown aboard the Lockheed U-2.

Northrop is now waiting for the USAF to decide whether to integrate the sensor on the rest of the E-8C fleet, or simply continue using the T-3 testbed before installing the MS-177 on other platforms.

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Secretary's Donley's Comments at AFA

Posted by Sean Meade at 9/14/2010 10:58 AM CDT

Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley spoke at AFA yesterday. Here's the AF's coverage of his speech. Here's their brief video coverage with a few clips of Donley. And below is the complete text of Donley's speech, State of the Air Force -- 2010. What stands out to you from these comments?

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123221720

http://www.af.mil/news/video/index.asp?cid=3&sid=15784

Thank you Mr. Sutter for that kind introduction...and for your leadership as AFA's Chairman of the Board for the past two years. On behalf of the 680,000 Total Force Airmen and to all of the AFA leadership and members, thank you for hosting yet another wonderful conference. We appreciate your partnership in expressing the importance of air, space and cyber power to America's national security.

You have also given voice to the concerns of Airmen--active, Guard, Reserve and retired, on a wide range of issues--from pay and benefits, to health care, to ensuring our Airmen operate the world's most capable equipment. Year after year, you always manage to outdo yourselves at this conference and bring together an amazing set of speakers and experts to address the challenges facing our Air Force. For these and all of the other things you do, your Air Force thanks you.

To the very many distinguished guests and speakers here --thank you for attending and contributing to this year's Air Force Association Conference. To our uniformed and civilian leaders here today, thank you for your participation in this week's conference, and for your outstanding teamwork across our major commands and headquarters.

I am extremely fortunate to have two outstanding wingmen in General Schwartz and Chief Master Sergeant Roy. Now two years into our work together, General Schwartz remains an incredible and energetic leader, bringing years of command experience to every situation, and strengthening Air Force relationships with our Joint, interagency, industry and coalition partners at every turn. He lives our core values and represents us very well, indeed. Chief Roy, constantly in motion interacting with Airmen, always has the pulse of the enlisted force. Thank you for your leadership as well.

This morning I'll discuss the world we live in today and how we'll ensure our Air Force remains well-postured for what tomorrow brings--for it will come with challenges as always. First, however, let's take a moment to reflect on a year that was so full of accomplishments that I hesitate to begin listing, but please indulge me as I mention a few...

To say that it's been a busy year would be an understatement.

I would like to begin by noting one of this year's most important events in our headquarters: the arrival of Under Secretary Erin Conaton, following a very, very long vacancy in that office. Erin has quickly become a valued and respected player on our leadership team and is making a tremendous difference for our Air Force. Erin, welcome aboard.

First and foremost this year, we are fulfilling our assigned operational tasks in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom... currently at 45 RPA CAPs and on track to 50 by end FY11; we completed deployment of 30 MC-12s to the theater, met airlift and schedule requirements to accomplish the OIF drawdown and OEF surge, and Airmen across our Air Force continue to provide armed overwatch, special operations, aeromedical evacuation, training, and all the other tasks our joint and coalition partners rely on.

This was also the Year of the Air Force Family...a focused assessment of how we support Airmen and their families. This review highlighted a broad range of personnel programs already in place; but it also identified areas needing further attention. As a result, tangible improvements in Airman resiliency, spouse support, support to families with exceptional needs, school transitions for military kids and other programs are already taking effect.

We completed our Space Management Review, which aligned space acquisition functions back under SAF/AQ, and created a Space Board to support the Under Secretary, as our focal point in the headquarters, in the oversight and coordination of all aspects of the Air Force space enterprise.
We extended our streak of successful national security space launches to 71; and launched the initial AEHF (advanced extremely high frequency) and next generation GPS satellites, and the third Wideband Global Satellite.

Our MAJCOM and headquarters leadership team also executed several complex basing decisions...settling on beddown plans for MQ-9 mission control elements, the MC-12s at Beale (AFB, Calif.) ; F-35 training at Eglin (AFB, Fla.) and Luke (AFB, Ariz.), and future initial operating locations for the F-35 at Hill (AFB, Utah) and Burlington (Air Guard Station, Vt.); and consolidated locations for the F-22 fleet.

We also recently completed Technology Horizons...a comprehensive review of trends in science and technology, conducted once each decade since our founding, that will shape our future Air Force research and development priorities.

Of course, there have been many, many other achievements; but from this brief list, let's step from the past year into the present and our immediate future. Last year we noted that our Air Force has reached an inflection point at which critical changes in the Strategic Environment, Resources, and Technology are combining to re-shape our future. These changes are pushing us to achieve higher levels of performance across our Air Force.

The strategic environment is now better defined following the Quadrennial Defense Review, Nuclear Posture Review, the National Space Policy and other reviews. But that does not make it any easier to address.

We still face significant challenges, such as the need to accommodate new requirements for missile defense, cyber, and greater situational awareness in space; the recapitalization of satellites; and modernizing our aging aircraft inventories by bringing on the F-35, trainers, bombers, and - especially - tankers.

Given this guidance and the strategic environment, our approach has been, and remains, to ensure we balance investments across our core functions, and focus on the combat and enabling capabilities necessary for joint and coalition warfighting at any point across the potential spectrum of conflict.

Concerning resources, guidance from Secretary Gates continues to recognize that defense spending is under increasing pressure as the nation struggles with economic recovery and record budget deficits. In response, the Chief's and my internal guidance to the Air Force has been as clear as we can make it:

* Don't get over-extended with more programs and resource commitments than we can afford

* Concentrate on the top few modernization programs essential to each Core Function, and provide sufficient funding to ensure success

* Don't leave broken, underfunded programs and disconnects for the next budget cycle

* Re-emphasize program stability, and don't break programs to fix other programs

* Make the hard choices now

Recent SecDef guidance has put even more emphasis on improving internal efficiencies within the defense budget, in order to shrink and move resources from our supporting tail to warfighting tooth.

The emphasis on internal reform and reallocating resources from tail to tooth is not new to the Air Force. For several years, we have pushed ourselves to reduce and consolidate personnel, financial management, and other functional communities - to introduce new technology and ways of doing business that have allowed us to reallocate both dollars and manpower into growth areas like the ISR and RPA communities, or reinforce the critical nuclear enterprise and other areas in need.

We all know these changes have sometimes been painful: when the business systems or technologies do not deliver on time, or cost more than we initially programmed, or take us beyond our comfort zone and require us to reinvent how we do business.

But we all know that the introduction of new technology to substitute for manpower, while not a new theme, will need to continue. On the business side we need to deliver on enterprise systems that will further assist process, personnel, logistics and materiel efficiencies. For operations, it is clear we'll require more automated processing, exploitation and dissemination of information to support high volume sensor collections, and continue to press for more efficient and renewable energy solutions for both aircraft and our installations.

We also need to keep the pressure on improvements in acquisition. As we continue to strengthen our acquisition workforce, our on-going tasks are to be better negotiators, to know our internal business imperatives, to understand our contracts, to know our industrial base, and to respect that every dollar is an Air Force dollar, every dollar is a taxpayer dollar.

We will also sustain rapid acquisition capabilities that demonstrate how the system can work better, and we have more than a few examples where we already work with contractor partners to do this:

* BIG SAFARI for example has long been an alternative acquisition source for certain high priority, rapid-reaction, urgent Combatant Commander needs. From programs like Rivet Joint to the MC-12s, BIG SAFARI's success has been attributed to integrated program strategies and an unmatched culture of responsiveness, developed and forged in the Cold War, which continues to evolve and adapt in our current operational environment.

* Our Rapid Capabilities Office, established in 2003, is carrying forward a legacy of streamlined acquisition approaches used in the development of the F-117 and other classified efforts of the past, now adapted to 21st century technology and organizational constructs.

* Finally, the Operationally Responsive Space office, established less than three years ago, is developing both satellite and launch capabilities specifically focused on rapid augmentation and reconstitution of space based capabilities in support of Combatant Commanders at the speed of need.

We also have continuing and powerful examples of Airmen in action. I've come across at least three in the past year:

* At (RAF Mildenhall, England's) 100th Maintenance Squadron, maintainers purchased commercially available, off-the-shelf 'cherry pickers' called work assist vehicles to use in place of the bulky B-4 stands typically used for aircraft inspections. These vehicles are less than half the cost of the B-4 and save an estimated 30-40 percent in time.

* At Cannon (AFB, N.M.), the 27th Special Operations Wing is modifying MC-130W's with a Precision Strike Package, referred to as "Dragon Spear" bringing not only mobility, but integrated ISR, armed overwatch and close air support for SOF teams. The first aircraft delivered in 10 months, the fleet of 12 will be delivered by the end of next calendar year. The acquisition methodology yielded an 85 percent savings from the initial estimated costs.

* At Whiteman (AFB, Mo.), communicators developed in-house an Adaptable Communications Suite for B-2s. With a sensible use of internal and external resources, the ACS is taking half the time to field at less than 20 percent the cost of the initial contractor estimate.

These are all examples of how we will continue to use technology, timely and efficient resourcing strategies - and our Airmen--to support the larger purpose of strengthening combat power to meet the changing demands of our security environment.

Going forward, we'll also look for ways to streamline our existing organizations and command structure. And, I ask you, who better to do the work of seeking greater efficiencies in our Air Force than our own Airmen and leadership team? Those fully vested, those who have devoted their professional careers, those who know our Air Force inside and out, and in some cases those who have literally given their lives to serve and build the world's finest Air Force. And to our industry partners in this work: we ask you to help yourselves, and to help us, to be more efficient -- so that we can buy more of what you make.

The technology, resource, and strategic dynamics in this environment make it imperative that we keep the pressure on ourselves, for we have yet more work to do in the immediate years ahead.

We must tend to the issues of weapon system sustainment and materiel readiness, where both requirements and costs have been growing. An end-to-end review is underway to find trade space within the requirements generation, depot maintenance, and supply chain processes that are impacting system availability and cost. Once again, effectiveness and efficiency must go forward hand in hand.

Long range strike is another priority, and the Air Force leadership is working with our DoD counterparts on the next steps to advance the family of systems - the weapons, platforms, ISR, electronic warfare, and communications that make up this critical national capability. We approach this issue with both confidence and caution.

We are confident that a modern long range strike platform not only has been, but should remain, a critical tool in the nation's arsenal. Developed early on for nuclear deterrence, the current inventory of bombers has been regularly used for conventional missions. Their ability to range the planet with operational flexibility -- from raids to campaigns, with adaptable payloads, have proven their value time and again.

But we are also cautious. Cautious not to repeat the painful experience of previous Air Force bomber programs: narrowly focused capabilities, high risk technologies, and high costs contributing to affordability problems, leading to program cancellations, or low inventories.

This time around, while recognizing the continued need for the nuclear mission, we're approaching LRS capabilities mainly from conventional perspectives, where they are most likely to be used. And we're focused on developing a higher confidence acquisition strategy with known technologies, a fleet size large enough that we can flexibly operate and sustain it over a 30-year life span, but not so large that we cannot afford it, and with unit cost as a key factor. And this time around, we also recognize the value of other, complimentary capabilities in the LRS family of systems and the need to prioritize and synchronize our investments.

We'll also seek opportunities to further strengthen the Total Force. The ability to fashion a powerful combination of Active, Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve components has been one of our great strengths. We have undertaken a comprehensive review of our 142 Total Force Initiatives to establish the business case analyses, combining operational effectiveness and efficiency, which will help us further leverage the Total Force concept. In mission sets old and new, we'll continue to look for ways to employ Total Force Initiatives when they bring more capacity, more capability, and efficiency to our Air Force.

And finally, anticipating a successful source selection process this Fall, we hope and expect that by this time next year we will have underway, a new tanker program.

This morning we've discussed some of the past, present and future as we work to fight today's fights, prevent fights where able, and prepare for fights of the future. We've also touched on the demands and uncertainties of our current and future environment, and identified a few of the ways we'll accommodate this future. However, the very best hedge we have against the future remains our Airmen.

Our underlying strength is in the integrity, excellence, and selfless service that our Airmen bring to the fight daily. It's our Airmen who will translate their organizations, doctrine, training and equipment into combat power--in the air, in space, and in the cyber domain. At this event we recognize 12 of our most outstanding Airmen, and I hold them as evidence of this truth. For each of the 12 represented as our OAY here, there are nearly 35,000 Airmen for each of them around the globe providing combat power for America.

There is one Airman I'd like to mention this morning who epitomizes the qualities we see in this year's 12 Outstanding Airmen: Chief Master Sergeant Richard Etchberger. Chief Etchberger courageously gave his life 42 years ago on a remote Laotian mountain top referred to as Lima Site 85. The White House recently announced that the President will posthumously present Chief Etchberger the Medal of Honor on Sept. 21. We'll hear more of Chief Etchberger's story tonight and in the week ahead.

But it is certainly appropriate, as we gather again this year as an Air Force family, -- all of us together, Active, Guard, Reserves, civilians, industry partners, from the youngest cadets to oldest retired chiefs and generals - that we reflect on how far we have come; reflect on those -- Chief Etchberger among them --whose perseverance, devotion to duty and example helped to build our Air Force and brought us to this point; to reflect on what we ourselves are doing, individually and corporately, to make our Air Force even stronger; and on the work we have set before us to make it so. Will we honor the legacy of devotion and service that gave us the Air Force we have today? Will we continue to take up the work, and do the difficult things that will make us an even stronger Air Force?

I have every confidence that we will, because we know the work we do together makes a difference to Airmen. Posturing our Air Force for success in the fight, today and tomorrow, will require us to deal with the uncertainty and new challenges in the strategic environment, changing technologies, and fiscal austerity. And although a balanced approach to investments, the wise application of technologies, and our strengthened commitment to efficiency will serve as hedges against this future, we know where our true strength lies: in our awesome Airmen who deliver daily the global vigilance, reach, and power upon which our Joint and coalition partners depend.

Yes... We will be true to our legacy. We will keep the pressure on ourselves, and continue to build an Air Force that future Airmen will be proud to lead and serve, an Air Force ready to fly, fight and win in air, space, and cyberspace, whenever the nation calls.

Thanks again to AFA for this week's conference and program. And thanks to all of you for your personal and collective efforts over the past year, and for your continuing commitment to the important work ahead. It remains an honor to serve with you in the world's finest Air Force.

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

CSAF Schwartz to Industry: Don't Be A Scorpion

Posted by Amy Butler at 9/14/2010 1:51 PM CDT

Gen. Norton Schwartz, chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force, included an interesting fable in his 70-plus minute speech to the annual Air Force Assn. conference today.

A frog and a scorpion are at one bank of a creek. They both need to cross. The scorpion asks the frog if he may ride across on his back. The frog, however, requires reassurances that he won’t get stung. The scorpion agrees.

Halfway across the creek, the scorpion stings the frog. Before plunging into paralysis and dying, the frog asks, “Why did you do that?”

“Because it is in my nature,” the scorpion says.

Schwartz also called in his speech for unity and suggests that old habits of following only organizational interests should not get in the way of common purpose, which should be a need for defenses.

During the Q&A with reporters that followed, I asked Schwartz who was his audience for that call to unity. His answer: government and the Defense Department’s relationship with industry. Schwartz didn’t name company names, but he said that, for example, a contractor could have a 30-year program. But, despite the long-duration work, it is often focused on a “near-term concern about financial status.”

Schwartz calls on industry to “take the somewhat longer view and [focus on] the common cause” of national defense. “I’m not naïve … I understand what drives business in this country” but he is hoping for a “more enlightened view … a little bit longer view of profitability” from contractors.

A noble request, no doubt. But, the bottom line is industry is the scorpion in this scenario. Quarterly earnings are just that, and vice presidents and presidents alike get big bonuses for selling stuff and making profit each quarter. They can also lose their jobs with a few bad quarters.

But, this fable is not just an interesting look at the scorpion. What about the frog? He knows he's likely to get stung, but yet, he still offers a ride.

If industry is the scorpion in this scenario, the Pentagon is the frog. Surely it has more tools at its disposal than merely offering the scorpion a ride? Curious to see what you think...

[buglerbilly]

AgustaWestland Features Best Value AW139 for the U.S. Air Force's CVLSP

(Source: Agustawestland North America; issued September 14, 2010)

WASHINGTON --- AgustaWestland North America, Inc. is featuring its AW139 multi-role helicopter for the U.S. Air Force's Common Vertical Lift Support Program (CVLSP) at the Air & Space Conference and Technology Exposition in National Harbor, Md.

The militarized, multi-role AW139 is an off-the-shelf, FAA-certified, medium-twin helicopter in military and civil service worldwide since 2003. Used in multi-mission roles by more than 122 separate customers in 46 countries, AgustaWestland manages an active, highly-efficient AW139 production line in the company's Philadelphia, Pa. manufacturing facility.

"AgustaWestland is excited to offer the AW139 for the U.S. Air Force's CVLSP," said R. Scott Rettig, chief executive officer, AgustaWestland North America. "Designed as the modern replacement for the legacy CVLSP platform, the AW139 is the ideal size, at a fraction of the cost of the competition – offering the best value for the U.S. Air Force."

Currently, there are 490 orders for the AW139 for multi-mission roles that include military and law enforcement use; VIP executive transport; search and rescue missions; environmental and offshore utility monitoring; and emergency medical services.

The AW139 provides 30 percent more cabin volume and 50 percent more payload than the legacy CVLSP platform, while maintaining a similarly-sized external footprint. The AW139 offers the U.S. Air Force a CVLSP helicopter which accommodates a host of combat-equipped personnel in heavy-duty tactical seats or executive passengers in fixed civil-certified seats inside its spacious cabin. Large sliding cabin doors allow easy and rapid loading and unloading.

The baseline AW139 sets new standards of multi-mission performance with unrivaled range and speed for this mission. It features dedicated equipment to meet a range of general and special mission roles. The all-glass, integrated cockpit with state-of-the-art technology minimizes pilot workload, allowing the crew to concentrate on mission objectives.

Hundreds of AW139s are operational today, flying demanding missions in challenging environments, including government customers such as the Republic of Ireland and the United States Department of Homeland Security.

A cabin demonstrator of the AW139 CVLSP is on display at booth 901 at the Air Force Association's 2010 Air & Space Conference and Technology Exposition, Sept. 13-15, 2010.

AgustaWestland North America, a subsidiary of AgustaWestland, a Finmeccanica company, is FOCI mitigated and responsible for the company's U.S. government programs. AgustaWestland is a global leader in military and commercial vertical-lift. With more than 100 years of experience in the aerospace industry, AgustaWestland provides an unrivaled range of rotorcraft and vertical-lift products and services for every military, government and commercial application.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Exiting AF Intel Chief: No US Air Superiority

September 15, 2010

Stars and Stripes|by Kevin Baron



OXON HILL, Md. -- The U.S. Air Force’s former top intelligence officer warned a roomful of generals this week that the U.S. has lost its air power advantages and is dangerously ill-prepared to stop the gap-closing efforts of China and Russia.

Lt. Gen. David Deptula, a former F-15 pilot, challenged Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ fundamental belief that U.S. air power vastly overmatches any foreign military.

“For the first time, our claim to air supremacy is in jeopardy,” Deptula told the Air Force Association’s national convention on Monday.

At the same forum last year, Gates defended ordering a halt to the production of the Air Force’s vaunted F-22, saying that by the time China produces a fighter comparable to the F-22, the U.S. will have more than 1,000 F-22s and F-35s.

The Air Force Association has openly opposed Gates’ stance and this year Deptula came armed with a 15-minute bombastic video titled “Threats to 2010 Air Supremacy.” His presentation attempted to reopen more than just the F-22 fight, warning that from surface-to-air defenses to air-to-air fighters, the U.S. was letting others catch up. These future threats, he said, are now current.

There is “a global revolution to modernize air defense systems,” the video’s narrator explained. Russia and China are deploying or building better surface-to-air missile, or SAM, systems that could one day prove too much for U.S. fighter aircraft.

Within the decade, it said, both nations could field fighter jets nearly comparable to the F-22.

“When taken in total, our potential adversaries can create a nearly impenetrable box that our legacy fighters cannot enter, thus denying us our air supremecy,” it said.

After showing the video, Deptula dismissed “the notion of overmatch in the realm of air dominance,” a reference to the Gates position.

It is unclear how much weight Deptula will be able to lend to those in the Air Force, or on Capitol Hill, clamoring to defend air power procurement programs. Gates frequently has said he wants the Pentagon to prioritize building a force and arsenal ready to meet the most current and plausible threats.

So far, Gates has been largly successful, and Deputla’s presentation was riddled with worst-case scenarios.

“The dominance we’ve enjoyed in the aerial domain is no longer ours for the taking,” Deptula said.

[buglerbilly]

DATE:15/09/10

SOURCE:Flight International

Rivals not deterred by USAF shift on turboprop fighters

By Stephen Trimble

The US Air Force has downgraded plans for standing up a new light attack and armed reconnaissance (LAAR) fleet, but two major competitors still see huge potential in the long term for a turboprop-powered fighter in US colours.

Lockheed Martin teamed with Hawker Beechcraft a year ago to compete with the Embraer EMB-314 Super Tucano for a potential 100-aircraft order. The USAF later reduced the size of the programme to 15 aircraft, as the focus shifted from establishing an Irregular Warfare wing to "building partnership capacity".

Both competing teams are waiting for the USAF to issue a request for proposals for the LAAR contract.

Embraer so far is offering the Super Tucano by itself, but is talking with potential US-based partners, says Jairo Sotério, marketing and business development senior manager for defence programmes. The company has leased space in Jacksonville, Florida, but has not decided where to build the Super Tucano if selected for the contract.

The Lockheed/Hawker Beechcraft team, meanwhile, has developed two prototype AT-6B aircraft featuring the mission system derived from Lockheed's A-10C upgrade and using a Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-68D engine.

As both companies wait for the LAAR competition to start, they are also among the bidders for a USAF deal to supply up to 20 light air support aircraft to the Afghan air force.

[buglerbilly]

Combat Air Force Leaders Sign New Strategic Plan

(Source: U.S Air Force; issued September 17, 2010)

LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. --- Top Air Force leaders from the eight commands representing the Combat Air Force released "Securing the High Ground: Agile Combat Airpower," Sept. 15. This strategic plan provides a construct for developing, planning and employing integrated combat capabilities for the nation.

"The CAF is America's asymmetric advantage and the backbone of our nation's security," said Gen. William M. Fraser III, commander of Air Combat Command and Combat Air Force lead. "Partnered with the joint force, our Airmen provide strategic deterrence for our nation, allies, and coalition partners, and, when required, fight and win conflicts with agile combat power."

The strategic plan articulates how the CAF will focus its efforts on winning today's fight while keeping a steady, unwavering commitment to defending the homeland, strengthening nuclear deterrence and meeting tomorrow's challenges.

As highlighted in the 21-page plan, tomorrow's security environment is changing rapidly and is characterized by a growing list of competitors and potential adversaries from across the spectrum of conflict. To counter these challenges, the plan emphasizes the imperative for the CAF to be "properly organized, trained and equipped to deliver agile combat airpower in this environment." Additionally, the plan highlights the importance of "improving warfighter integration" and balancing efforts "in order to execute CAF assigned core functions, within fiscal constraints."

The 2010 CAF Strategic Plan accentuates the role of the CAF to provide agile combat airpower, which "is our air, space, cyberspace, and battlefield Airmen, organizations and capabilities delivering global vigilance and power for the nation."

The document was signed by the following commanders: Gen. William M. Fraser III, ACC; Gen. C. Robert Kehler, Air Force Space Command; Gen. Gary L. North, Pacific Air Forces; Gen. Roger A. Brady, U.S. Air Forces in Europe; Lt. Gen. Donald C. Wurster, Air Force Special Operations Command; Lt. Gen. Frank G. Klotz, Air Force Global Strike Command; Lt. Gen. Charles E. Stenner, Jr., Air Force Reserve Command; and Lt. Gen. Harry M. Wyatt III, Air National Guard.

Click here for the full document (21 pages in PDF format) on the USAF website.

http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100915-011.pdf

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

NEW VIDEO: US Air Superiority in Jeopardy?

Posted by Amy Butler at 9/21/2010 9:58 AM CDT

The Air Force may have lost the F-22 debate, but not all of its officers are mum about air superiority.

The service's leadership only a few short years ago pounded podiums about the importance of staying ahead in the cat-and-mouse game of aircraft and SAMs developed to shoot them down. But, the truncation of the F-22 program and abrupt decapitation of the service by way of forced resignations of the chief of staff and secretary sent a clear message. And, these days the mantra we are hearing from general officers is that the Air Force is relevant to today's fight, and the service is "all in," meaning a partner in the joint fight.

The Pentagon was focused on today's fight and worries about future air superiority needed to take a back seat. Today's fight is happening in permissive airspace. And, it involves COIN operations, not the sophisticated integrated air defense system (IADS) problem.

During what will be his last speech to the annual Air Force Assn. conference last week, Deptula (who is retiring this summer) said that "some" in the Pentagon have taken the capabilities and air superiority provided by the U.S. Air Force for granted. "They assume [it is] a right," he said. But, he says, U.S. air superiority is "under threat and being challenged." For example, the SA-500 ground-based air defense system is expected to go operational in 2015. According to marketing claims, this system could protect an airspace stretching from Charlotte, NC, to Buffalo, NY, Deptula said.

Deptula showed this video to explain the issue:



My guess is Deptula is taking one for the team. It is less than palatable right now to be screaming about air superiority against near peers in the Pentagon's hallways while the problem at hand is low-tech Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan armed with IEDs. I suspect that Deptula is saying what most USAF generals are thinking, but don't want to say for fear of being pegged as a white-scarf lover ... and fired.

But, I'm curious -- Do you think these claims are true? Are they spin? Are they one man's perspective? And how, if at all, could they influence the coming budget debate?

[Deks]

He's taking the best case promises of future generations of non-US weapons against a worst-case scenario involving US capability. Some stats in the projection (case in point, AIM-120 range) are downright false. It's right for the AIM-120A, but they don't fly with those anymore.

Given that he claims the PAK-FA to be superior to the F-22 I'm not sure what his solution is, though perhaps he just got carried away with that one.

In general, it's just fear-mongering.

[Gubler, A.]

Wow Air Power Australia video. What a load of shit. The counter logical assumptions within this report are breathtaking.

[buglerbilly]

I was going to include the comments from ELP but even my, at times, perverted sense of humour doesn't stretch THAT far..........

[buglerbilly]

First Production C-5M Super Galaxy Takes Flight

(Source: Lockheed Martin; issued September 21, 2010)



MARIETTA, Ga. --- Lockheed Martin’s first production C-5M Super Galaxy made its first flight here Sept. 19 sporting the new “Super Galaxy” tail flash and nose art.

It is set to be delivered Sept. 30 and will arrive for duty at Dover Air Force Base, Del., in November.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

DATE:27/09/10

SOURCE:Flightglobal.com

PICTURE: HC-130J delivery marks treble milestone for Lockheed

By Craig Hoyle

Lockheed Martin marked a treble milestone in its C-130 Hercules programme during a 23 September delivery ceremony conducted at its Marietta, Georgia production site.

In handing over its first of a planned 18 new HC-130J combat tankers to the US Air Force’s Air Combat Command (ACC) organisation, the company also celebrated the delivery of its 200th new-generation “Super Hercules”.


© Lockheed Martin

First flown in late July, the HC-130J also became the 1,500th Hercules to have been handed over to a US government customer during the type’s more than 50-year production history, Lockheed says.

The new model will begin replacing the ACC’s legacy fleet of more than 30 HC-130N/Ps, with initial operational capability expected during 2012. The type will be used to support combat search and rescue (CSAR) and personnel recovery operations, for example by delivering inflight refuelling support for Sikorsky HH-60 Pave Hawk CSAR helicopters.


© Air Combat Command

Lockheed is also currently preparing to deliver its first C-130J-30 to the Indian air force, with the service’s first example having recently undergone its first engine runs.

[buglerbilly]

Global Strike Command Reaches Full Operational Capability

(Source: U.S Air Force; issued October 1, 2010)

BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. --- Officials declared Air Force Global Strike Command to be at full operational capability Sept. 30, on schedule, and less than 14 months after its initial activation as a command.

To reach that milestone, the command accomplished more than 700 action items identified by the secretary and chief of staff of the Air Force in 2009, when they chartered Global Strike Command to strengthen the nuclear enterprise by aligning all Air Force long-range nuclear-capable forces under a single command.

Lt. Gen. Frank G. Klotz, the Global Strike Command commander, reported full operational capability status in a memorandum to the secretary and the chief of staff of the Air Force today.

Full operational capability status is the final step in any military unit's stand up. Air Force Global Strike Command is the first completely new major command the Air Force has activated in more than 27 years.

"Our successful stand up was possible because of the commitment, innovative spirit, and sheer hard work of Global Strike Command Airmen," General Klotz said.

"This talented team of professionals put in place all the functions of a major command while simultaneously executing those functions," he said. "This unique challenge was a lot like building an aircraft while actually flying it."

Prior to activation as a major command, what was then Air Force Global Strike Command, Provisional was launched in January 2009, at Bolling Air Force Base, Washington D.C., under the leadership of then-Brig. Gen. James M. Kowalski, now a two-star general and the command's vice commander.

General Kowalski has been nominated by the president, and confirmed by the Senate, for a third star and to become the next AFGSC commander when General Klotz retires next year.

The command was formally activated at Barksdale AFB on Aug. 7 2009, on the premise that no mission is more important than operating, maintaining, securing and supporting the nuclear enterprise, officials said.

Since then, according to General Klotz's official memo, the command has established and manned a fully-functional headquarters. It also assumed responsibility for all units of both 20th Air Force, headquartered at F.E. Warren AFB, Wyo., and 8th Air Force, headquartered at Barksdale AFB.

The command is fully engaged in long-range planning for the nuclear deterrence and global strike mission, now having in place a strategic master plan that aligns AFGSC with the larger Air Force strategic plan.

Global Strike Command assumes full responsibility for planning, programming and financial management activities Oct. 1, and will be lead for both sustainment and modernization of the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles operated out of F.E. Warren AFB; Minot AFB, N.D.; and Malmstrom AFB, Mont.; the B-52 Stratofortress nuclear-capable bombers here and at Minot AFB; and the B-2 Spirit nuclear-capable bombers at Whiteman AFB, Mo.; as well as UH-1N Huey helicopters.

The command has also established an inspector general function and has already conducted at least one major inspection at each of the command's six operational wings, the general said.

Additionally, the command formed a crisis action team, as well as a response task force to deal with emergency situations and potential incidents.

Other command missions include targeting analysis at the 625th Strategic Operations Squadron at Offutt AFB, Neb., and the ICBM test launch operations of the 576th Flight Test Squadron at Vandenberg AFB, Calif.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

C-5M Rekindles Interest In Upgrading C-5As

Oct 4, 2010

By Graham Warwick



MARIETTA, Ga. — With a program to re-engine the C-5B airlifter meeting cost and performance targets, the U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin are again looking at the possibility of upgrading older C-5As.

“It’s a good idea, but we are in a very fiscally constrained environment,” says Lt. Gen. Tom Owen, commander of Aerospace Systems Command and program executive officer for aircraft procurement and modernization.

“The Defense Department will evaluate the option in future years, if the dollars are available,” he says, speaking at the Sept. 30 handover in Marietta, Ga., of the first production C-5M upgraded under the Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program (RERP).

Lockheed Martin says it needs long-lead funding in Fiscal 2014 to avoid a gap in the modification line after the last C-5B is upgraded, and to keep prices agreed upon with major suppliers locked in. These include General Electric for the new CF6-80C engines.

“As the aircraft proves itself, we are talking to the Air Force about the benefits of a single fleet,” says Lorraine Martin, Lockheed Martin vice president for C-5 programs. The upgrade extends service life to at least 2040.

The three C-5Ms already in Air Force service, the former RERP development aircraft, include a single upgraded C-5A. This is achieving the same performance and reliability as the two modified C-5Bs, according to Lockheed Martin.

Re-engining the C-5 increases thrust by 22%, payload by 27% and range by 20%, says Jeffrey Armentrout, business development manager for strategic airlift programs. He adds that the mission-capable rate is exceeding the 75% target.

The company has a $6-billion fixed-price production contract to upgrade 49 aircraft, including two C-5Cs, for a total of 52 C-5Ms. The Air Force also operates 59 C-5As, but plans to retire 22 in 2011-12 because of excess strategic airlift capacity.

Congress directed the Air Force to study the potential for placing the retired aircraft with the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) or international coalition partners. A report will be submitted soon.

Lockheed has approached CRAF carriers, international air forces and foreign airlines informally and believes there is some interest in the excess C-5As, says Mark Johnston, director of U.S. government air mobility programs. “We will know more in the next 6-12 months,” he says.

Any CRAF airline that took C-5As “would be the first U.S.-flagged outsize-cargo carrier. That’s a unique capability,” Johnston says.

If operators can be found, Lockheed’s interest is in upgrading the retired aircraft with the $4.5 million Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) glass cockpit or $82 million RERP kit, for which AMP is a prerequisite.

Modernization of the C-5Bs is planned to ramp up to 11 per year at Marietta, but there is excess capacity to upgrade another two aircraft each year for other potential operators, Armentrout says.

A Defense Acquisition Board decision on full-rate production is set for Oct. 7. Martin says the program is meeting the “challenging” cost and schedule targets in the contract, with Lockheed seeing “significant” improvements in labor hours on the second and third production C-5Ms.

Upgrading the C-5B/Cs was justified on estimated net cost savings of $9 billion over the life of the program. “We have confidence in the numbers used to show the aircraft’s increased capability and enhanced reliability provide a sound fiscal basis for the program,” Owen says.

When it comes to the C-5As, “we will apply a similar method to see if investing more dollars in modernization is the right thing.”

Image: USAF

[buglerbilly]

US Air Force's 'secret' space shuttle X-37B goes missing again, rumours of possible landing

By staff writers From: news.com.au

October 12, 2010 8:25PM


The US Air Force's X-37B has gone missing again, according to reports. Picture: EPA/NASA/BOEING PHANTOM WORKS/HO HO Source: news.com.au

Whatever it is, it's an impressive piece of technology that at the very least has unparallelled capacity to generate headlines.

Now, for the second time since it launched, it's disappeared and the race is on once again to a) find it, then b) offer a plausible theory about what it's up to this time.

Back in late July, the X-37B went AWOL for nearly two weeks off its regular flight path.

When it was found, by amateur skywatcher Greg Roberts of Cape Town, South Africa, its new trajectory proved the shuttle was much more versatile than previously thought, with a "cross-range" wing set-up that may allow it to compensate for the slight turn in the Earth after a single orbit and land back on its original launch pad.

Now it's gone missing again, failing to pass over its regular flight path on the nights of October 7 and 9, according to UniverseToday.

This time around, the alarm bells have started ringing much earlier, thanks to the extra scrutiny offered by how-to video guides and apps such as the Simple Satellite Tracker which popped up after its first disappearance.

Track satellites with this link if you're not in the US or Canada

Use this link if you're in the US or Canada

However, despite the extra public surveillance, no one's been able to pick it up on a new flight path, leading to speculation that maybe this time around, the US Air Force is preparing to land its experiment.

According to forum member "Slenke" at militaryphotos.net, it's last known orbit "put it very close to Vandenberg AFB", one of the two sites expected to receive the X-37B, the other being the Edwards Air Force Base.

Both are located in California.

The X-37B's solar array allows it to stay aloft for 270 days, but even top brass at the US Air Force can't - or won't - say when it will land again.

“In all honesty, we don’t know when it’s coming back,” US Air Force spokesman Gary Payton told reporters when it was launched.

At that time, the main issue concerning the shuttle's makers was what kind of condition it would land in and whether it would be fit for reuse within a practical, although unspecified, timeframe.

According to the Pentagon, a second X-37B is already under construction.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/technology/us-air-forces-secret-space-shuttle-x-37b-goes-missing-again-rumours-of-possible-landing/story-e6frfro0-1225937846236#ixzz12EI62iDb

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

New Military Threats Include Less Money and Fewer Airplanes

Posted by David A. Fulghum at 10/14/2010 11:13 AM CDT

Despite being tactful, the message from U.S. Air Force chief of staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz is that the spending topline will flatten and actual buying power will drop for both serving personnel and retirees.

The list of potential victims of decreased defense funding is long. Service members and military retirees will likely have to pay a larger portion of medical cost, more bases will have to be closed, older aircraft will have to be modernized to serve longer -- because there will be too few new aircraft -- and Air Force leaders still have not convinced its civilian chiefs that they have a good, affordable plan for a new bomber that has direct value to all the services.

There’s also an operational impact that is being compounded by the proliferation of advanced technologies from air-defense systems to cyberattacks.

In fact, Schwartz describes the number of new contingencies the service has to prepare for is “infinite,” while the assets to address them, including aircraft, diminish. He also told members of the National Press Club that despite recent digital attacks on Iran, Syria, Georgia, Estonia – and daily sallies against the Pentagon – cyberwarfare for the military won’t be an offensive capability until the boundaries of the new dimension of warfare are resolved at the higher national and international levels. It is an “immature area [but] clearly a growth industry,” he says.

The defense budget is already being touted as the source for cuts of $1 trillion (to reduce the Federal deficit and national debt) over the next 10 years by a faction of Representatives and Senators, led by Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA), Ron Paul (R-TX), and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR). The group of about 50 members of Congress asks that military spending be subjected to the same rigorous scrutiny that non-military spending will receive. Further, they contend, in a Wednesday statement, that significant cuts to defense spending are necessary and can be made in a way that will not endanger national security.

A factor that adds confusion to defense planning is the even-faster emergence of threats and requirements as well as the need to plan for higher-end, large-scale conflicts which will demand a “different mix of response” than irregular warfare, Schwartz says.

The F-35 program is a poster child for the conflicting needs, requirements and financial constraints of the new budgetary environment.

The program could benefit from a multi-year contract, but only if there is a long-term requirement for the aircraft and there is budget stability, Schwartz says. There also could be room for a competing engine design for the Joint Strike Fighter if Rolls-Royce and General Electric would pay more of the $1.9 billion development cost, he says. Moreover, a competing engine could produce long-term savings, but only if the short-term, up-front costs are more affordable.

The Air Force’s financial strategy will have to deal with the development of advanced radars that are chipping away at the invisibility of stealth design like the F-35, F-22 and B-2. Advanced, long-range, electronic attack and computer invasion capabilities will be required to maintain the Air Force’s ability to penetrate the latest air defenses.

Part of the vast problems the military will face, Schwartz contends, will be resolved by the new joint service air-sea plan that will tightly integrate the capabilities of the Air Force and Navy to provide efficiencies in rapid deployment, cut into duplication of missions, combine acquisition and embrace interoperability – all while improving expeditionary reach and the ability to “create effects anywhere,” he says.

An example of the concept is using the F/A-18G Growler to support electronic warfare and electronic attack for both the Air Force and Navy instead of the USAF launching its own standoff jamming aircraft program. An offshoot of that effort – the Navy’s nascent Next Generation Jammer program – could operationalize airborne electronic attack for both services first through the EA-18G program and then the F-35. Adjunct capabilities -- such as stand-off electronic attack missiles and bombs, directed energy weapons and cyberinvasion -- could produce offensive non-kinetic elements once the rules of engagement for such weapons are codified.

[buglerbilly]

Warfighters Plan for 'Future Fight' at Weapons, Tactics Conference

(Source: U.S Air Force; issued October 25, 2010)

TUCSON, Ariz. --- Airmen in the ranks of sergeant through lieutenant colonel, warfighters serving abroad and defending the homeland, gathered here Oct. 18 through Oct. 22 to tell Guard and Reserve senior leaders what they need to improve capability in the air reserve component, or ARC.

Their focus was on "Legacy Platforms, Future Fight," this year's theme at the Weapons and Tactics Conference, or WEPTAC, held at Tucson International Airport, home of conference hosts, the Air National Guard-Air Force Reserve Command Test Center, or AATC, and the Arizona Air National Guard's 162nd Fighter Wing.

Nearly 1,800 Guard and Reserve Airmen, representing every ARC weapon system, assembled to present leaders with the unvarnished, honest and direct input they need to translate funding into products and capabilities during the next few years.

"We bring in people from the field who know what is needed to make us better," said Col. Richard Dennee, the AATC commander. "WEPTAC is pretty important for us. This is where we derive our requirements and how we want to secure them down the road."

The week-long conference consisted of 28 working groups meeting to compile a list of needs for each airframe and weapon system. It concluded with group chairmen briefing their findings to Lt. Gen. Harry Wyatt III, the director of the Air Guard, and to Daniel B. Ginsberg, the assistant secretary of the Air Force for manpower and reserve affairs.

"These are the people who have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan and have come back with learned lessons on what they need to do their job better," Colonel Dennee said. "And we do see results. We see results as soon as six months after the conference or up to a couple of years later."

Past WEPTACs produced clear goals for the Guard and Reserve. With input from the conference, test center pilots and engineers have helped ARC officials field new software, better communications systems and more lethal weapons.

And while bringing ideas to reality, AATC engineers find low-cost, highly-capable, off-the-shelf solutions.

One example at the center of attention was an early model F-16 Fighting Falcon equipped with the latest technology in precision weapons.

"We're putting the newest weapons and latest LITENING targeting pods on the oldest aircraft in the inventory," said Lt. Col. Todd Seger, the combined test force director for AATC. "We have small-weapons racks that carry four small-diameter bombs on each wing. This is the first time they've been integrated on the F-16 and we'll begin testing them next month with hopes of getting them to the rest of the Guard and Reserve as soon as possible."

WEPTAC helps AATC officials ensure they are prioritizing projects that are relevant to everyone, not just for the F-16, said Colonel Seger, so that Air Force mission is better served as a whole.

"It's the best job in the world," he said. "We get to use new aircraft weapons software, new pods, new weapons and produce capability that makes the warfighter safer and more lethal."

In the personnel recovery arena, test center engineers applied input from the field to improve combat search and rescue operations.

They upgraded the HH-60G Pave Hawk helicopter with dual smart-color multi-function displays for pilots and co-pilots, replacing outdated monochrome displays.

The new touch-screen LCD displays are full color and offer an array of tools including moving maps, forward-looking infrared and a turret camera.

"It's an awesome system," said Lt. Col. Jeff Peterson, the CSAR program manager for AATC. "I can run a full-up situational awareness data link, I can link a helmet-mounted cueing display and I can access a full moving map, which makes it so easy.

"I used to fly with a (computer) on my lap and pass it back and forth with the co-pilot," he said. "Now we both have linked displays that make everything safer and more efficient. We started fielding these in September (2009). In 12 months, we went from a concept to building these - that's unheard of across the combat Air Force."

For the Airmen who fly the most seasoned aircraft in the inventory, the need to keep up with the active duty's newer platforms necessitates the bottom-up information flow offered by WEPTAC.

"We have a lot of the legacy platforms, and we have to keep them relevant for the future fight," Colonel Dennee said. "Understanding the threat, the enemy and the new technologies out there for us, we're working to take that new technology and modernize our airplanes to be the best that we can be."

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

U.S. Air Force Nears UH-60 Deal With Army

By MICHAEL HOFFMAN

Published: 29 Oct 2010 18:45

The U.S. Air Force is close to finalizing a sole-source deal to buy up to 93 UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters from the U.S. Army, according to defense industry sources.


Under the proposal, the Air Force would acquire up to 93 UH-60Ms from the Army. Here a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter fills a suspended water bucket on a training mission in Marquette Lake on Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa., May 20. (Sgt. Shawn Miller / Army)

Air Force officials launched the effort to replace the service's Vietnam War-vintage UH-1N Hueys with commercially available helicopters last year. From the beginning, the Air Force said it would make performance tradeoffs to keep costs down for what is called the Common Vertical Lift Support Platform.

Read more here: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4996201&c=AME&s=TOP

[buglerbilly]

Wounded Soldiers Stuck in Middle of Aircraft Battle

Updated: 6 hours 41 minutes ago

Sharon Weinberger
Contributor

This is the third in a series of stories by our special correspondent about military aviation issues linked to the war in Afghanistan. Read also the growing pains of the Afghan air force and the attempts of women pilots to find a place in it.

RAMSTEIN AIR BASE, Germany (Oct. 30) -- More than two dozen injured U.S. troops, including six critical-care patients, have been loaded onto the C-17 transport aircraft destined for Andrews Air Force Base, Md. Then everyone aboard gets the bad news:

There's a fuel leak, and the aircraft may not be able to fly today.

That means more waiting for the patients, a number of whom were wounded in operations in Afghanistan.

If the aircraft can't be fixed within a few hours, a new aircraft will have to be found, and that's easier said than done. Flights these like -- aeromedical evacuation -- have a high priority, but with military operations in Afghanistan surging, finding an aircraft can be a game of musical chairs.

This scenario plays itself out almost daily, not just here at Ramstein, but in Afghanistan and Iraq. Injured troops awaiting transport from Afghanistan, via Ramstein, back to the United States are caught in the middle of two battles in Washington. One is the long-delayed $35 billion plan to replace the Air Force's aging fleet of refueling tankers, which are also used for aeromedical evacuation. The second is over the further production of C-17s.

The Air Force uses four types aircraft for aeromedical evacuation, but the C-17s and KC-135s are the workhorses, carrying troops from Afghanistan to Ramstein, and then on to the U.S. For those working in aeromedical evacuation, the C-17, a modern transport aircraft produced by Boeing, is by far the preferred option.

"The KC-135 has tremendous limiting factors," said Lt. Col. Penny Harnisch, a flight commander for the 10th Aeromedical Evacuation Flight, who is currently deployed to Ramstein. "It's cramped and cold and has limited power."

The space issue isn't a matter of creature comforts.

The narrow body of the KC-135s, which are typically more than 40 years old, makes it challenging to load litter patients. Then, once they are loaded, a patient on a top litter might be almost up against the ceiling.

The amperage available on the aircraft is also a limiting factor when it comes to critical-care patients, who are hooked up to a number of monitoring devices and other medical equipment that require power. Another problem is that the temperature on board is hard to regulate -- it's cold on the bottom and hot on top, another source of patient discomfort.

Why the Air Force often moves patients with the KC-135, an Eisenhower-era aircraft, rather than the more modern and spacious C-17s comes down to simple numbers. "We don't have enough C-17s," Harnisch said.

The Air Force has ordered 213 C-17s to date, but further orders depend on a battle between Congress, which has pushed to extend the production line, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who wants to halt further purchases.

"The leadership of the Air Force is clear: They do not need and cannot afford more C-17s," Gates said during a speech earlier this year.

Like the other aircraft used for patients, C-17s are not dedicated to aeromedical evacuation. Rather, they are transport aircraft used for cargo and passengers, but can be reconfigured to carry patients. C-17s typically transport "beans and bullets" downrange to Iraq or Afghanistan, and then are used to carry the injured back, according to Air Force Capt. Erskine Cook, an 86th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron flight nurse.

"They may have just taken tanks off the plane 12 hours earlier," Cook said.

Like Harnisch, Cook says the C-17 is greatly preferred to the KC-135. Cook, who was previously a medical crew director, said the majority of his flights to Afghanistan were on KC-135s rather than C-17s.

"The C-17s is the Cadillac, the gold standard of patient transport," Cook said, adding that KC-135s were at the "bottom of the list" for aeromedical evacuation teams.

A replacement to the KC-135 would address many of the complaints, but for nearly 10 years, the Air Force's plans to replace its fleet of tankers, which may cost some $35 billion, have been mired in politics. An initial plan to lease 100 modified Boeing 737 aircraft was derailed in a scandal that eventually sent a former Air Force official and Boeing executive to prison. After a new, competitive acquisition was held, an Airbus-based tanker was selected, but that plan was also thwarted after Boeing successfully protested the award.

The Air Force is now conducting yet another competition and is expected to select a winning tanker later this year.

The problems with patient transport on the KC-135 play out in both little and big ways. Harnisch recalled one flight from Andrews Air Force Base, when an amputee being transported from theater was situated within a foot of passengers, in this case a mother with two young children.

"I had an issue with that," Harnisch said, adding that the patient who just lost a limb in a traumatic battlefield injury may not be ready to have children staring at him.

With the prospect of no more C-17s rolling off the production line after 2012, and the new tanker still in limbo, the options for aeromedical evacuation are limited.

Cook, the aeromedical evacuation nurse, said the Air Force can make do with what it has. "Is the KC-135 the preferred air frame? No. But you do what you have to do," he said. "It does the job, but it's not the best for the jobs."

Cook, in a sentiment echoing the infamous statement Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once made about the lack of armored Humvees, said: "You pick up the patients with the plane you have."

In the meantime, back in Germany, there's some good news for the patients at Ramstein awaiting transport back to Andrews: The leak on the plane can be fixed, and a new aircraft isn't needed. After a four-hour wait, they are reloaded onto the aircraft and ready to leave.

[JimWH]

I had a discussion related to this with a few aero-medical people recently. Back in the early 2000s the RAAF had access to either Hercules or B707 for aeromedical casevac, and of the two Herc was felt to be the less awful option. Which surprised the hell out of more than a few of us, but the professionals were the ones who were telling us this. Now, the C-17 is at the top of the pile, and when KC30 comes on line there'll be an investigation into it versus the Herc. C-17 actually has elements specifically designed to support medical equipment in the backs, including plumping for high-flow air and oxygen lines, which is a damn site easier and safer than lugging all the O2 aboard in large cylinders.
I'm therefore not surprised that the USAF dislikes KC-135 for casevac.

[Chunder]

You won't EVER have enough C-17's using the articles logic. It doesn't come down to numbers, it comes down to Routing and schedules (numbers available). Which is why the 135 is available, because it isn't used extensively other than to fill gaps where necessary.

High flow aircon & hence CO 2 has been available on airlines since the late 80's. Albeit the supply is limited. B707 & the 135's are basically the same bones system plane if you add a plug.

BTW, wasn't the EADS/NG proposal initially for palletised seating? I thought that is what the 135's had? It however was a SAC asset, so therefore probably an afterthought.

Makes me want to have an argument about the "Replacement" argument of the KC X program. There's was no real consideration to the new legs the Navy will finally get from the asset & hence it's true potential, there's no real consideration of the practical savings of Standard Transport Vs RoRo, There's no real consideration for the potential to fill more than just a tanking role I.E Casevac. Why not? When the Army orders helicopters or APC's it's a consideration, when the Navy builds a ship it's a consideration. It's not even a real problem, Having done a bit of work for the RFDS in the past.

No the single answer in Peter Pan the Air force Land is to build more C-17's. Well that is kind of unfair, it's probably more political & hence congress.

[JimWH]

Chunder, I'm repeating what my colleagues from the RAAF (who do this for a living) tell me. If they tell me that high flow oxygen and room air isn't available in the back of the B707, then I believe them. Whether or not it is technically feasible to install the plumbing is another question entirely.

[Chunder]

Chunder, I'm repeating what my colleagues from the RAAF (who do this for a living) tell me. If they tell me that high flow oxygen and room air isn't available in the back of the B707, then I believe them. Whether or not it is technically feasible to install the plumbing is another question entirely.

I believe you fully. Once again my grammar has failed me. Coherence seems to be a repeated problem of mine.

[buglerbilly]

Industry Mulls UH-1N Protest

By John Reed Monday, November 1st, 2010 2:22 pm



Industry officials are considering filing a protest with the GAO if the U.S. Air Force moves ahead with a rumored plan to purchase 90 choppers to replace its fleet of UH-1N Hueys on a sole source basis.

“We’re hoping to have a competition” but “we haven’t ruled out” the idea of protesting a sole-source buy for the Huey replacement, an industry official close to the matter said. “No company likes protests, our preference is we wouldn’t have to go there.”

Such a move would be the third protest in the last five years of a major Air Force weapons buy.

It has been reported that the Air Force is planning to use the Economic Act of 1932 to justify buying the choppers on a sole source basis from the U.S. Army. The act allows government agencies to buy goods from other government entities as a way of quickly getting ahold of badly needed items..................

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/11/01/industry-mulls-uh-1-replacement-protest/#ixzz144rVaC6s

[buglerbilly]

DATE:02/11/10

SOURCE:Flight International

Northrop Grumman expects USAF decision on F-16 radar upgrade soon

By Stephen Trimble

Northrop Grumman expects the final word from the US Air Force on a possible radar upgrade for its Lockheed Martin F-16s within a few months.

Northrop has developed and tested the scaleable agile beam radar (SABR) to compete with the Raytheon advanced combat radar (RACR) for the contract.

Both companies invested in active electronically scanned array technology for the F-16 with the expectation of USAF orders, but the service has not yet confirmed an approved need or funding to upgrade the mechanically scanned Northrop APG-68.

"We have been anticipating something out of these guys for the last couple of months and it's still right on the edge of their tongue," says Dave Wallace, Northrop manager for F-16 sensor programme development. "We'd be expecting to see something early next year, if not sooner."


© Northrop Grumman
SABR scaleable agile beam radar

Northrop installed SABR on an F-16 Block 50 last year. Flight tests demonstrated the air-to-air mode and a range of broad and narrow modes within the air-to-ground synthetic aperture radar mode, says Wallace.

USAF officials recommended making changes to the pilot vehicle interface, which Northrop has done, he adds.

Raytheon disclosed recently that it had completed tests on the same F-16 in July and August, and expects to submit its findings to the USAF this month.

Both companies have invested heavily in the F-16 radar retrofit programme ahead of a customer commitment. The USAF has been conducting a service life assessment programme on the F-16 fleet to determine how long the aircraft will remain viable.

"I think the air force is looking to extend the capability and life of its airplanes," says Wallace.

While Raytheon touts the RACR's links to the APG-79 AESA installed on the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Northrop traces the SABR architecture to the APG-80 agile beam radar on the F-16 Block 60 and the APG-81 on Lockheed's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

"We will update SABR with everything the F-35 gets," says Wallace. "If you update the F-35, and [if] the F-16 needs an update as well, essentially all you do is host it on the F-16 architecture and test it, and we are arranging for that to work."

The USAF decision could also influence the foreign market. Northrop and Raytheon have received US export licences to market the F-16 AESA products to foreign militaries. Wallace adds: "It's tough to determine whether or not they would go before a US Air Force decision has been made. If I had to handicap, at best it's simultaneous."

[buglerbilly]

DATE:04/11/10

SOURCE:Flight International

PICTURE: Air Force tests 8-blade propellers for legacy Hercules

By John Croft

The US Air Force is nearing the end of a flight test program to measure the performance of Hamilton Sundstrand eight-blade NP2000 composite propellers for the C-130.

Since May, engineers with the 418th flight test squadron have been testing a C-130H3 with the propellers at Edwards Air Force base, most recently completing minimum control airspeed tests.

The NP2000 propellers replace the legacy C130's four-blade propellers, increasing thrust at takeoff and in the low-speed regime whilst decreasing noise and vibration. Newer C-130Js use a six-blade R391 composite propeller built by Dowty Aerospace.


©US Air Force

The air force in part would like to use such an upgrade for its LC-130 aircraft flying missions to Antarctica, where currently jet-assisted takeoff (JATO) bottles are used to decrease takeoff distance. Depending on the final performance, the NP 2000 could either reduce the number of JATO rockets needed, or eliminate the thrust augmentation system altogether.

After maximum combat-load takeoffs, three-engine departures and other tests, the air force will reinstall the cargo aircraft's four-blade propellers to directly compare performance characteristics, say officials. Testing is expected to be finished in January, after which the air force will evaluate whether to upgrade a subset of legacy C-130s with the propeller.

The enhancement is similar to what commercial developer Snow Aviation International has been offering for several years for the C-130E and H models. Snow says the NP2000 propellers reduce the C-130's takeoff run by more than 20%.

[buglerbilly]

586th Flight Test Squadron hits testing milestone

Posted 11/8/2010 Updated 11/8/2010

from the 49th Wing Public Affairs


HOLLOMAN AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. -- A highly modified Air Force C-12J with an inert Laser Maverick on the belly of its fuselage is flying after a testing mission Aug. 26, 2010. The Laser Maverick is an air-to-ground missile that can seek out laser-designated targets. This is the first time the 586th Flight Test Squadron has tested external stores on the modified C-12J, which is normally a “people mover.” (U.S. Air Force photo/Airman 1st Class Joshua Turner)

11/8/2010 - HOLLOMAN AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. -- The 586th Flight Test Squadron, part of Air Force Materiel Command's 46th Test Group, recently hit an aviation milestone when the unit completed flight testing of an inert missile, the LTGM-65 Laser Maverick, currently under development by Raytheon Missile Systems.

Air Force testers have flown many variants of the air-to-ground missile throughout the years, but the significance of this testing was the aircraft used to carry it: an Air Force C-12J.

Normally a "people mover," this C-12, nicknamed "Ms. Mable," is an Air Force version of a Beech 1900C airliner that has been highly modified to support agile, low-cost testing of advanced avionics and weapons.

Perhaps the most unusual modification is the addition of two pylons and bomb racks that enable the aircraft to carry test items, like the Laser Maverick, on the belly of its fuselage.

"This is a really unique test capability ... because you usually don't find missiles underneath a transport aircraft," said Capt. Reid Larson, Chief Flight Test Engineer with the 586th FLTS. He also noted that the aircraft does not launch the missiles; it only carries them into the air for testing purposes.

"[This capability] provides a much needed low-cost, long-loiter capability for weapons and avionics development," added Lt. Col. Monte Cannon, the 586th FLTS commander.

Captain Larson explained that the concept of placing bomb racks on the aircraft was born about three years ago when the need was identified for testing of external stores at slower speeds and at significantly lower cost than testing on a typical fighter aircraft.

"There is a real need for an inexpensive way to conduct risk-reduction flight testing," he said. "Testing early in the development helps work out the major bugs in a new weapon or system before loading it on a fighter that costs much more to operate."


HOLLOMAN AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. -- Capt. Reid Larson explains details about an inert Laser Maverick attached to a highly modified C-12J during an interview, Aug. 25, 2010. The Laser Maverick is an air-to-ground missile that can seek out laser-designated targets. This is the first time the 586th Flight Test Squadron has tested external stores on the modified C-12J. Captain Larson is the chief flight test engineer with the 586th FLTS. (U.S. Air Force photo/Airman 1st Class Joshua Turner)

According to Colonel Cannon, the C-12 is cheaper to operate per flight hour largely because it consumes significantly less fuel than an F-15 or F-16, for example.

"There is obviously a tradeoff here," he said. "We can't go nearly as fast as a fighter, but that's fine in the early stages of testing."

He explained that once the test item has proven itself during this early testing, it gets flown on the aircraft from which it will be employed.

"A team of experienced pilots and engineers across the 46th Test Group initially began a study to assess the feasibility of attaching bomb racks to the C-12J," said Captain Larson. "The team determined that it was not only something that we could do, but also should do. It made sense from a technical perspective and from a cost-savings perspective."

What followed was a two-year design and modification effort, followed by a year-long test program to verify that the addition of the bomb racks did not affect the behavior of the airplane during flight.

The recently-completed Laser Maverick testing marks the first time of this new capability has been used. The program aimed to show that this variant of the Maverick could successfully track a fast moving target illuminated by a laser.

"The need to strike mobile targets was identified as an urgent need for current operations in theater," said 2nd Lt. Rob Erickson, lead flight test engineer for the program. "By any measure, this was an enormously successful demonstration. It was truly a team effort with outstanding support from the White Sands Missile Range as well as numerous members of Team Holloman."

One of Holloman's remotely piloted aircraft flying training units also assisted in the testing.

"We were especially excited to work with members of 6th Reconnaissance Squadron who operated an MQ-1 Predator to laser designate the simulated target as part of the testing," said Colonel Cannon.

Eric Peterson, Laser Maverick lead engineer with Raytheon, explained that upgrades to guidance and control software, which help get the missile to its intended target, will make up the next generation Laser Maverick.

"This was an important milestone for us," Mr. Peterson said. "The 586th team here was really focused on the outcome and made sure that we got a realistic test of the missile."
He added that this test is an important risk-reduction milestone before full development and operational tests commence later this year.

According to Captain Larson, the squadron doesn't have long to savor this success. There are plans in the works to certify several other technologies for flight on Ms. Mable.
"We're looking to eventually test targeting pods, such as LITENING and SNIPER, that would allow us to zoom in on, track and even laser designate targets just like many of our fighters can," he said.

Each of these technologies will provide a key capability to support the squadron's test customers.

"In the end, this is about providing world class testing that helps cost-effectively verify new combat capability," Colonel Cannon said. "Our aim is to help get things right before the weapon or system gets to the fight."


HOLLOMAN AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. -- Eric Peterson secures a protective dome cover on an inert Laser Maverick, Aug. 25, 2010. The Laser Maverick is an air-to-ground missile that can seek out laser-designated targets and this is the first time the 586th Flight Test Squadron has tested external stores on the modified C-12J. Mr. Peterson is the Laser Maverick lead engineer with Raytheon Company. (U.S. Air Force photo/Airman 1st Class Joshua Turner)

[buglerbilly]

Maneuver Over Copters Is Opposed (excerpt)

(Source: New York Times; published Nov. 7, 2010)

The USAF is being totally stupid about this. They are already on the shit list of a variety of Politicians and shennigans like this are just going to tee off a whole bunch of other people................barmy in extreme! :shakehead

The Air Force has taken a beating over its contract process in recent years. But if officials thought a new approach would avoid controversy, they have been disappointed.

As the Air Force tries to speed its purchases, it is considering using an obscure 1932 law to buy at least $1 billion worth of helicopters without competitive bids, government officials say.

Watchdog groups and some industry officials are bristling at the idea, saying it would hand the business to Sikorsky, a unit of United Technologies of Hartford, Conn., without giving other companies a chance to offer what could be substantially lower prices.

The law, the Economy Act of 1932, was part of Herbert Hoover’s efforts to cut purchasing costs in the Depression by letting federal agencies buy equipment from one another without seeking bids from industry. Military analysts say it now eases transfers of fuel and computers, but it has hardly ever been used to buy weapons or aircraft.

Under the proposal, which is being debated in the Pentagon, the Air Force would add its order for as many as 93 Black Hawk helicopters to an Army contract with Sikorsky. The Army would order the extra craft, then sell them to the Air Force.

Air Force officials have said that the new helicopters would replace old Hueys that help secure Western missile silos and can ferry federal officials to safety in a crisis. Most of the Hueys were built during the Vietnam War, and avoiding a bid process could save a year or more in getting the replacements into the field.

But, as top Pentagon officials emphasize the need for more competition to reduce weapon costs, several analysts estimate that the Air Force could save 20 to 40 percent by inviting other manufacturers to bid.

“There are certainly options out there, and the Air Force rationale just seems kind of shaky,” said Nick Schwellenbach, the director of investigations at the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit group in Washington. “The idea should be to save money by having the companies slug it out.”

Air Force officials declined to be interviewed and released a statement saying, “All options are under review, and no decisions have been made.” (end of excerpt)

(Click here for the full story, on the New York Times website (registration required)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/business/economy/08helicopter.html?_r=5

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

USAF Will Contract - AFA Analysis

Posted by Bill Sweetman at 11/11/2010 5:28 AM CST

Projected budgets will not sustain US Air Force aircraft numbers and force levels, and it is fighters that are most likely to be cut, according to Northrop Grumman analyst Dr Christopher Bowie. That prediction formed part of a presentation for the Air Force Association's Mitchell Institute, introducing a landmark report by Bowie and retired USAF colonel James Ruehrmund - a detailed analysis of Air Force aircraft inventories and budgets over the past 60 years.

It does not sound like the kind of report that would include remarkable revelations, but it does. Advocates of BCW (boot-centric warfare) like to portray the Air Force as obsessed with fighters, but the numbers say something else.

Over the last five years, almost half - 45 per cent - of the USAF's total budget for operations, procurement and R&D went to activities that directly support the joint force - space communications and intelligence, airborne ISR, airlift and tankers. Another 30 per cent went to "foundational" items - base costs, test and training. "If you eliminated all the combat units you would save 25 per cent of the budget," Bowie notes.



In terms of aircraft and weapon numbers, the history shows a "stair-step" effect - long periods of force stability followed by rapid declines - from the enormous Air Force of the 1950s (in the year I was born, the USAF had 3,898 F-86s, 2,251 F-84s and 1,436 B-47s) to today. The change was driven by budgets, changes in priorities and new missions: for instance, 1,000 B-47s were retired in five years in the 1960s and replaced by missiles, in parallel with a rapid drawdown in air defense. Other "stair-steps" followed the end of the Vietnam war and the fall of the Soviet Union.

"The air force is about to step off the next riser," Bowie predicts, because of flat-to-declining budgets, increasing personnel costs and aging fleets, and he adds that "he doesn't see much wiggle room" in most budget sectors: the new tanker is essential to mobility, the need to maintain the space constellation "doesn't leave maneuver room" and the ICBM and bomber forces are at a minimal level with little savings to be had. "That leaves the fighter force," Bowie says, "and the numbers are not going to sustain the force levels."

Bowie advocates two policy changes: A "more aggressive push" towards directed energy weapons, which he says could be "an improvement in capability similar to precision guided munitions" and a similar drive towards unmanned and autonomous systems, which he calls an "ICBM-like game changer."

[buglerbilly]

GOP control of House could revive the F-22 fight

11:49 am November 12, 2010, by Jim Galloway

The commentary to this is derogatory almost in the extreme. Barely a single correspondent thinks its more than a Grandstand posture...............

The takeover of the U.S. House by Republicans could prompt a revival of the fight for additional funding for the Marietta-built F-22 stealth fighter, U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey said Friday.


U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey, a Republican from Marietta. AJC file

“This isn’t just for the sake of home-cooking, but also for the sake of the country,” Gingrey said in a telephone interview.

But Gingrey conceded that concerns over spending and the federal deficit could make the funding battle a difficult one. The planes have a price tag of $120 million each. “We would have to look at it with a very, very sharp pencil,” he said. “It would take some negotiating.”

Suggestions from the debt commission, made public this week, may hold some possibilities A three-year freeze on federal pay and a 10 percent reduction of the federal workforce “are things that really get me excited,” the Marietta congressman said.

Production of the F-22 ended with its omission from the 2009 defense bill. Critics called the plane a Cold War relic poorly suited for anti-insurgent battles in Iraq and Afghanistan. Secretary of State Robert Gates, a Republican holdover from the Bush administration, recommended the end to F-22 production, and President Barack Obama threatened to veto the defense bill if more funding for the stealth fighter were continued.

Originally, 381 F-22s were to be built. Production ended nearly 200 short. Gingrey said he and many military analysts think the planes are necessary to meet a scenario in which the United States faces two hot wars at the same time.

Gringrey says he has not consulted yet with Chambliss on the issue of reviving the F-22. Right now, Gingrey said, he and the rest of the Georgia delegation were focusing their efforts on getting Republican Austin Scott of Tifton, who beat Democrat Jim Marshall of Macon, a seat on the House Armed Services Committee.

Scott, as the only Georgia Republican on the committee, would become the point man for any discussion of the F-22, Gingrey said.

[ADMk2]

The best proposal I've seen to try and fix USAF procurement woes is to introduce the concept that IF you protest a lost contract and you lose your protest, that your company is fined for delaying the whole process...

THAT'd cause a bit of angst, but it should reduce a lot of frivolous protests, such as that seen recently by that mob that tried to bid the Antonovs and couldn't even get their submission together by the deadline...

[buglerbilly]

To be honest, in Industry you cam whinge and bitch to your heart's delight, the Client will just tell you to go away.

Some, a damn sight more than do now, used to give you a formal debrief BUT this is heaviliy frowned upon by most Majors now as it gives away too much info to the unsuccessful party(s) to the possible/probable future detriment of the successful Contractor.

There is also the fact that, as has happened to me and one mob I worked for, where an unsuccessful party complained to our Management, the Client, the Client's head office, Industry Minister for the State and Federal governments of the time. In all cases his complaints were over-ridden and rejected flat out but no this prick wanted to take it further.

I'm all for beating the crap out of time and energy wasters like this.

[buglerbilly]

Tanker Task Force Funding to Decrease in Fiscal 2011

(Source: U.S Air Force; issued November 10, 2010)

We want you to service the same number of aircraft but with less money...........rigghhhttttttt! This is going to be interesting to see..............

BANGOR, Maine --- Demand for tanker airlift support is not expected to slow down in the near future, but the money to fund Guard and Reserve man-days for the mission will be decreased for fiscal 2011, Air Force officials said on Nov. 4.

Gen. Raymond E. Johns, Jr., the commander of Air Mobility Command at Scott Air Force Base, Ill., spoke to members here at the Maine Air National Guard's 101st Air Refueling Wing, which flies the KC-135 Stratotanker along with members of four other units as part of the Northeast Tanker Task Force.

He said the downturn in funding "doesn't mean that (the Guard mission) is any less important."

The units began flying air refueling missions across the Atlantic Ocean in 2003 as troops and equipment headed for Iraq. The mission has continued throughout operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Unit officials said the 101st flew more than 1,000 missions under the program in fiscal 2010.

"The demand isn't decreasing, but the dollars are," Johns said.

He described the unit's work as "marvelous" and added, "When the country needs us ... you are here. You are what makes the Air National Guard ... and the U.S. Air Force successful."

In late September, more than 400 Airmen from five tanker units in four states were notified that they may lose their man-day funding at the end of October. So far, 21 Airmen at Bangor have been told to stand down.

On Nov. 4, General Johns and Lt. Gen. Harry M. Wyatt III, the director of the Air National Guard, told the Maine Air Guardsmen that their participation in the air bridge would be scaled back during this fiscal year.

"We will meet ... the demands of this country and at the same time take care of our people," General Wyatt said.

In this fiscally constrained environment, Air Force officials must reduce the number of Guard and Reserve man-days by about 20 percent in 2011. Man-days are used by the active duty Air Force to fund Air Guard and Reserve members, who fill Air Force mission needs.

Guard officials said the tanker units represent a great value to the nation's defense. The Air Guard makes up seven percent of the Air Force's 2010 budget, but maintains about 40 percent of the Air Force's fighter, tanker and airlift capacity.

"We keep getting called, because we can offer an efficiency," General Wyatt said. "And we cannot lose sight of that fact."

About 80 percent of the entire tanker force is in the Air Guard and Air Force Reserve, General Johns said.

The Northeast Tanker Task Force is made up of four Air Guard units from four states, including the 101st ARW in Maine; the 157th ARW at Pease International Tradeport, N.H.; the 171st ARW in Pittsburgh, Pa.; the 108th ARW at Joint Base McGuire, N.J. An Air Force Reserve unit from JB McGuire also is part of the bridge.

General Wyatt encouraged unit members to remember their culture and heritage, because "times are tough, and we have to stick together.

"We'll make it through this," he said.

-ends-

[Deks]

The Air Guard makes up seven percent of the Air Force's 2010 budget, but maintains about 40 percent of the Air Force's fighter, tanker and airlift capacity.

Quotes like this annoy me, especially when followed so closely behind the graph from the page previously:



Put's the 7% for 40% in a bit more context when you look at the other expenditures that need to be made. Be interesting to see the ratios for mission rates to compare as well.

[buglerbilly]

DATE:17/11/10

SOURCE:Flightglobal.com

USAF launches search for missing F-22 Raptor

By Craig Hoyle

The US Air Force launched a search operation last night after one of its Lockheed Martin F-22 fighters failed to return to its base following a training mission.

“An air force F-22 assigned to the 3rd Wing at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson lost contact with air traffic control at 7:40pm Alaska time today while on a routine training mission,” the USAF says in a brief statement.

The service confirms that “a search is underway”, and says: “more information will be released as it becomes available”.


© Staff Sgt Brian Ferguson/US Air Force

News of the missing Raptor comes just months after a C-17 strategic transport from the USAF’s 3rd Wing crashed at Elmendorf-Richardson AFB, killing all four crew members.

[buglerbilly]

DATE:17/11/10

SOURCE:Flight International

USAF spots “apparent” F-22 wreckage, pilot still missing

By Stephen Trimble

Aircraft wreckage spotted by a US Air Force search team is believed to be a Lockheed Martin F-22 that disappeared at 7:40pm on 16 November, the USAF says.

The search for the USAF F-22 pilot is continuing nearly 18 hours after air traffic control at the Elemendorf-Richardson joint base in Alaska lost radar contact with the F-22.

The apparent crash site is located about 100 miles north of Anchorage, the USAF says. The pilot, who is not being identified while the rescue effort continues, was flying what the USAF described as a "routine", nighttime, training mission.

"Finding the missing pilot is our top priority," 3rd Wing commander Col Jack McMullen said in a statement.

If the F-22 crash site is confirmed, it will be the third F-22 destroyed since Lockheed advanced past the prototype stage in the early 1990s.

The loss also shrinks the USAF's future F-22 fleet to 185 fighters. Lockheed is currently building the final batch of 20 F-22s scheduled for delivery before March 2012.

To preserve its dwindling fighter inventory, the USAF plans to upgrade all three fly-by-wire types - F-22, F-35 and F-16 - with an automatic ground collision avoidance system (auto-GCAS). The system is designed to take control of the aircraft if the pilot approaches a non-recoverable condition.

It is possible such a system could have spared the most recent F-22 crash, when Lockheed test pilot David Cooley briefly lost situational awareness during a 9g manoeuvre. As he regained awareness, the F-22 was already diving through 14,000ft at M1.6. Cooley ejected a moment before the F-22 crashed, but the aerodynamic forces at M1.4 killed him.

Another F-22 was destroyed on 20 December 2004 on takeoff from Nellis AFB, Nevada. A maintenance procedure triggered a programming glitch that wiped out the F-22 flight control system, and the pilot ejected with minor injuries.

[buglerbilly]

DATE:17/11/10

SOURCE:Flight International

USAF selects three to compete for insurgent jammer

By Stephen Trimble

The US Air Force has selected three companies to bid for a $200 million programme to field an electronic attack pod aimed at jamming communications networks used by insurgents.

Contracts awarded in early November to BAE Systems, ITT and Raytheon allow each company to mature their technologies ahead of a selection for the new pod.

It is not clear what technology ITT and BAE can offer the USAF, but Raytheon has the communication electronic attack with surveillance and reconnaissance pod.

All three contractors have rushed to react as the USAF has shifted its electronic attack priorities since 2009. After struggling to field a broad capability to jam integrated air defence systems since 2002 it decided to focus on the irregular warfare mission first.

A market survey issued by the USAF asked for a "low-cost, rapidly fieldable counter-communications" system. The service asked for a pod that could be integrated on unmanned aircraft systems, medium-sized and large manned aircraft.

USAF budget documents released in February also requested $200 million for an "electronic attack pod" aimed at irregular warfare targets.

The USAF's new focus on jamming insurgents is a sharp departure from recent priorities. Defeating the networked radars and command-and-control networks that guide the most sophisticated surface-to-air missiles had been its top priority in the electronic attack mission.

However, the service has struggled to fund the requirement. In 2005, the USAF cancelled the Boeing B-52 stand-off jammer system after cost estimates ballooned from $1 billion to $7 billion. Two attempts to revive a less-capable variant called the core component jammer also were dropped.

The USAF redirected funding to the irregular warfare mission after the US Army expressed interest in a similar capability for its General Atomics MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAS.

[buglerbilly]

Rescue Teams Sent To F-22 Crash Site

Nov 18, 2010

By Robert Wall wall@aviationweek.com
LONDON

Search and rescue teams have identified the location of the latest loss of a U.S. Air Force F-22, this one crashing during a nighttime training mission while operating from Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska.

The F-22 lost contact with air traffic control around 7:40 p.m. local time on Nov. 16. The crash site was found 100 mi. north of Anchorage, the USAF says. The aircraft was part of a two-ship formation, “Rocky One” and “Rocky Three.” The mishap flight was “Rocky Three” with “Rocky One” unable to locate the crashed aircraft. The crash site was discovered around 10:15 a.m. local time on November 17, but rescue teams were not immediately able to land to determine the fate of the pilot.

This is the fourth loss of an F-22 airframe. The last F-22 crashed on March 25, 2009 when the Lockheed Martin test pilot, while flying at Edwards AFB, Calif., almost lost consciousness during a high-g maneuver and failed to pull the aircraft out of a steep, high-speed dive in time to recover. The pilot was killed immediately by windblast forces when he ejected from the F-22 at 765 knots equivalent airspeed, roughly 150 knots above the Aces II ejection seat’s design limits, U.S. Air Force accident investigators said.

The 2009 mishap occurred on the third of three high-speed, high-g test runs to evaluate how opening the side weapons bay affects aircraft performance. The tests involved rolling inverted at Mach 1.6 and 25,000 feet, performing half of a split-S maneuver, then rolling upright and pulling out of the dive. Investigators believe that because of inadequate anti-g straining the pilot suffered “almost” g-induced loss of consciousness (A-LOC) and lost situational awareness, allowing the aircraft to enter a steep, high-speed dive from which recovery was not possible. Anti-g straining squeezes the heart and keeps blood flowing to the head. The pilot’s technique was evaluated as ineffective based on an audio recording. While he did not lose consciousness, his attention became focused on fighting off the symptoms of A-LOC.

Relatively incapacitated, the pilot did not begin the recovery immediately on completing the third test. The F-22 rapidly lost altitude as the dive angle steepened. At 14,800 feet, 83 degree nose-low and Mach 1.49, the pilot rolled the aircraft upright, but it was too late. Investigators say the escape system functioned as designed, but the ejection speed was beyond anything seen even in sled testing. The ACES II seat is designed for a maximum 600 knot ejection speed, but there is an 80 percent chance of major or fatal injury above 550 knots.

The first F-22 airframe loss occurred in 1992, when a prototype YF-22 crashed at Edwards, during which the pilot survived without ejecting. The second was during the aircraft’s test and evaluation period in December 2004, at Nellis AFB, Nev., during which the pilot ejected safely. In January, the F-22 fleet was briefly grounded when rust was discovered in components of the ejection seat system.

This is at least the seventh Class A mishap for the F-22 since fiscal 1992.

[buglerbilly]

Air Force: Evidence points to F-22 pilot's death

Published November 19, 2010


Nov. 19: Col. Jack McMullen, 3rd Wing commander, announces the death of pilot Capt. Jeff Haney based on evidence at the F-22 Raptor crash site.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Evidence found at the remote, rugged Alaska site where an F-22 Raptor crashed indicates the pilot died, an Air Force official said Friday evening.

Part of the fighter jet's ejection seat was found at the site, which means Capt. Jeffrey Haney of Clarklake, Mich., was not ejected and could not have survived the Tuesday night crash, Col. Jack McMullen said.

"If the pilot was able to eject, the seat would go with him," McMullen said. Also, an emergency locator transmitter would have been activated if the pilot had ejected and it was not.

Also found were pieces of the flight suit Haney had been wearing.

No body or remains have been found at the site, which McMullen described as a wet area. He said the impact of the crash caused a large crater that swallowed up much of the jet. Recovery efforts are expected to last several weeks, given the challenges of removing the wreckage. McMullen said the effort involves about 130 personnel in temperatures that plunge to 20 below at night.

Haney's single-seat jet crashed during a training run about 100 miles north of Anchorage near Denali National Park. He was assigned to the 525th Fighter Squadron, 3rd Wing, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson.

"Obviously, this is a huge loss for the 3rd Wing and for the Air Force, but it's even a greater loss and it's a very emotional time for the entire Haney family," said McMullen, the 3rd Wing commander.

Searchers found the crash site Wednesday but had not previously been able to extensively inspect the hard-to-reach wreckage.

An investigation team will look at the cause of the unknown crash, which occurred in clear conditions.

"The weather was beautiful," McMullen said. "You could see the ground, you could see mountains, you could see the terrain."

Haney was married with two children. Officials said he joined the Air Force in 2003 and has been at the Anchorage base for 4 1/2 years.

The F-22 took off Tuesday from the joint Air Force and Army base for a training run.

The jet and a second F-22 practiced "intercepts" and were nearing completion of the exercise when one aircraft disappeared from ground radar tracking and from communications with the other F-22 at 7:40 p.m. Tuesday. McMullen said the plane's transponder was acting normally and stopped transponding when the jet crashed.

An air search had been ongoing, with searchers looking for any sign of a parachute or a fire the pilot might have started had he been able to eject from the plane.

Alaska has had multiple fatal plane crashes since early June, including an Aug. 9 crash that killed former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens and four others.

In July, a C-17 cargo jet from the 3rd Wing crashed at Elmendorf during a training demonstration for an air show, killing all four crewmen aboard. Other crashes occurred at Denali National Park, central Alaska and in a busy business district near downtown Anchorage.

[buglerbilly]

Major AWACS upgrade begins

Posted 11/19/2010

by Patty Welsh
66th Air Base Group Public Affairs


The first E-3 Sentry, or Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft to receive the block 40/45 upgrade sits Nov. 18, 2010, outside the programmed depot maintenance hangar at Tinker Air Force Base, Okla., awaiting pre-checks prior to PDM and the installation of the upgrade.

11/19/2010 - HANSCOM AIR FORCE BASE, Mass. (AFNS) -- The next step in the largest block upgrade in the history of the E-3 Sentry, or Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft occurred Nov. 18 at Tinker Air Force Base, Okla., when the first aircraft receiving the block 40/45 modification was inducted by the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center.

New mission software will enhance tracking and combat identification capabilities, in addition to providing operators with a better picture of the battlespace.

"This modification replaces a mission computer system originally installed in the 1970s," said Maj. Brett Johnson, the AWACS the 40/45 Production chief. "The new system will have an open, network-based architecture, enabling future net-centric modifications."

The upgrade also allows for more sensor integration both on- and off-board the aircraft, improves the aircraft's data link infrastructure, improves machine-to-machine interaction and compresses the timeline from threat engagement to neutralization.

"Think about technology thirty or forty years ago, or even five years ago, and compare it to the capabilities a smartphone has today," Major Johnson said. "We need to give our warfighters improved technological capabilities so they can do their jobs more efficiently and effectively."

The upgrades are being performed at the same time as programmed depot maintenance to minimize aircraft operational downtime.

"Doing a modification of this size during PDM has never been done before," Major Johnson said. "The scheduling, planning and coordination has been a key piece to get us to this event."

Other program office planners are expressing interest in trying to do something similar for their modification efforts.

While Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center technicians are set to perform the upgrades, Electronic Systems Center officials are the lead integrators.

In late October, ESC officials awarded a contract to Boeing for $65 million to procure and manage the thousands of parts needed, and also provide on-site production and installation support throughout the upgrade.

"ESC's role as lead integrator is to ensure all the pieces are in place, so before a wrench is turned, everything needed is there," Major Johnson said.

This first aircraft is the centerpiece of low rate initial production, he said.

Modifications to the first aircraft are scheduled for completion by September 2011. During LRIP, six aircraft are scheduled to be upgraded by 2014.

"This first aircraft is critical," the major said. "It puts us on the path to our full rate production decision, which is planned for 2012."

All the aircraft in the AWACS fleet are scheduled to be at full operational capability by 2020, he said.

As a significant amount of the equipment being installed is commercial-off-the-shelf, ESC members are also thinking ahead with regard to technology obsolescence.

"Anyone who has bought a laptop computer over the last few years knows how quickly technology can change," Major Johnson said. "We're replacing all of the onboard computer work stations with laptops over the next several years, one aircraft at a time. In a modification of this complexity, laptops are only one of many components we are carefully watching."

To accomplish that, ESC officials awarded a contract to Boeing for $15 million in September to support active management of diminishing manufacturing sources and materiel shortages.

"There are a lot of moving parts, and a lot of interdependencies to this upgrade," Major Johnson said. "It has taken a lot of people from ESC, OC-ALC and Boeing to keep us on the right track."

[buglerbilly]

UPDATE 1-US Air Force concerned about F-35 delivery delay

Tue Nov 23, 2010 6:17pm EST

* Software, production issues could slow deliveries

* Air Force could upgrade F-16s to cover any fighter gap (adds Lockheed statement, paragraph 9)

WASHINGTON Nov 23 (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force's top general said on Tuesday he was concerned software development and production issues could delay the service's plan to start using new F-35 fighter jets in April 2016.

General Norton Schwartz said the Air Force variant of the Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) fighter jet was doing better in testing and development than the Navy and Marine Corps' versions, but it was not clear whether software issues would delay the start of their use in combat.

Vice Admiral David Venlet, the defense official in charge of the F-35 program, briefed Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter and other senior defense officials at a three-hour meeting on Monday about the preliminary findings of his months-long comprehensive review of the program.

The Pentagon earlier this year restructured the $382 billion fighter program, adding 13 months to the development phase. Venlet's review is pointing to a further possible delay of up to three years and added costs of up to $5 billion, sources familiar with the program said earlier this month.

Schwartz, speaking at a defense writers breakfast, said he had not attended the Monday F-35 review and said another high-level meeting would be scheduled to finalize plans for the program as part of the fiscal 2012 budget process.

He said the Air Force variant of the new radar-evading fighter was ahead of schedule in terms of testing and flying hours, was reporting good software stability and had experienced no structural failures or problems.

But there were lingering software and production issues, he added, noting that the Air Force was waiting for news from Venlet about whether that would postpone the April 2016 date for the Air Force to begin fielding the new fighters.

"I'm still concerned on schedule primarily," he said. "Software appears to be a potential pacing item here and that has me concerned in terms of deliveries."

Lockheed spokesman John Kent said the company was bringing in more software engineers and adding a new test line to accelerate work on the F-35's complicated software system, which involves over 8 million lines of code on board the new plane, and 20 million lines for the overall program.

Sources familiar with the program earlier this month said the need for additional testing would add up to a year to the development program for the Air Force and Navy versions of the plane, and up to three years to the Marine Corps' version.

Schwartz said the Air Force would examine the need to upgrade its existing F-16 fighters through structural modifications, and radar and avionics improvements, if the F-35 fighter wound up being delayed.

Asked if such moves would siphon off needed funding from the F-35 program, Schwartz said: "If the airplanes are not ready to put on the ramp, we'll work alternatives. It's not the preferred solution to be sure, but we'll do what's required."

Joe Dellavedova, spokesman for the F-35 program office, said Monday's meeting was not intended to come to any decisions about the program. He said another meeting of the Pentagon's Defense Acquisition Board would be scheduled in coming weeks.

A Pentagon spokeswoman said on Tuesday no date for that meeting has yet been set. (Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; editing by Gunna Dickson)

[buglerbilly]

USAF Chief Considers F-35 And F-22 Replacement

Nov 26, 2010

By David A. Fulghum davef@aviationweek.com
Washington



The U.S. Air Force’s senior officer has acknowledged concern over the Lockheed Martin F-35 program, in particular slow software development that may push the Joint Strike Fighter’s operational debut into 2016.

“There are some issues with respect to timing on software development,” the Air Force chief of staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz, told a group of defense writers this week in Washington. “We don’t have a complete understanding yet of whether that will affect the new, predicted of April 2016. I’m still concerned about the schedule – a little less on technical matters, [but] software appears to be a potential pacing item.”

At the same time, the chief of staff sounded more reassured about other development efforts. “With respect to the A-model aircraft, my assessment is that it is ahead on test points and flying hours, software stability has been good and the structure has experienced no failures or surprises,” Schwartz said.

The chief’s comments come as Pentagon leaders struggle to get a better handle on the three-model, nine-nation U.S.-led program, potentially the largest defense acquisition in history. A defense acquisition board (DAB) meeting on the JSF was convened Nov. 22 and another is due soon. The latest presentation there was by Navy Vice Adm. David Venlet, who became program manager last spring, and entailed a preliminary technical baseline review that involved a look at both production status and schedules, as well as test data and progress on software engineering.

The next DAB, still to be scheduled, will finalize inputs for the Fiscal 2012 defense budget request, expected on Capitol Hill in early February. Also at next DAB, “the resulting program plan will be considered for Milestone B,” Pentagon representatives told reporters separately this week.

In turn, programs delays could ripple throughout the military, according to a new Government Accountability Office report. But the Air Force chief disputes the GAO analysis, saying there are options and workarounds such as structural and avionics upgrades to extend the operational life of Block 40/50 F-16s and thereby ensure the U.S. can execute the national military strategy.

“A-model F-35 performance has indicated it is the best of the lot,” Schwartz says. “[But,] if the aircraft aren’t ready to put on the ramp, we’ll work alternatives. There is a related fighter force structure strategy that will accompany the F-35 production information in the Fiscal 2012 budget plan.”

The JSF’s bumpy path to production has not dampened Schwartz’s enthusiasm for joint aviation programs with the Navy, particularly in relation to a request for information about an F-22 replacement, although he said teamwork would be critical.

“There is little beyond the conceptual,” Schwartz said of news of a future aircraft collaboration. “It’s too early to put a whole lot of stock in a 2030-plus notion. With respect [to] Navy and Air Force cooperation, it seems to me that cooperation between the Air Force and Navy on air platforms and capabilities is absolutely key. The notion that this introduces challenges is true,” he continued.

“Ideally, what you want to do is have the U.S. government together in a way that allows us to get the best capability,” he says. “An example is BAMS and Global Hawk. Why should the Navy and Air Force have two separate depots, ground stations and training pipelines for what is essentially the same airplane with a different sensor? I think there is lots of opportunity for both of us to make better uses of resources.”

[I]Photo: Lockheed Martin

[buglerbilly]

Officials suspend F-22 crash recovery and restoration

Posted 12/1/2010

12/1/2010 - JOINT BASE ELMENDORF-RICHARDSON, Alaska (AFNS) -- After two weeks of intense effort, a joint Air Force and Army team has suspended recovery and restoration efforts for the F-22 Raptor that crashed Nov. 16 near Cantwell, Alaska.

An Air Force team did recover the remains of the pilot, Capt. Jeff Haney. Safety experts are now examining the wreckage as they seek to determine the cause of the accident.

Air Force officials say much as been done to clean up the crash site but caution some risks remain. Any debris discovered by snowmachiners or others in the area should not be handled, said Air Force Col. (Dr.) Paul Friedrichs, the JBER medical group commander.

"Modern composite aircraft, including the F-22, use materials that can present health risks if they are mishandled," Dr. Friedrichs said.

Air Force officials established a call center at (907) 552-9321 for anyone who finds debris that may be part of the aircraft so trained technicians can recover the material safely and minimize any long-term impact to the environment. Visible pieces of the wreckage have been removed from the site.

"The health risks become significant if you don't have the proper equipment and are cutting or grinding pieces of the airplane," Dr. Friedrichs said.

Although the risk of medical problems is low if someone picks up a part of the plane and immediately places it down, Air Force officials strongly encourage anyone who believes they may have found a piece of the plane not to handle it, due to risk of skin irritation or rash from the materials used to build the plane.

"When our technicians work with these materials, they wear eye protection, respirators and thick, industrial gloves," said Master Sgt. Monty Wood, an F-22 maintenance supervisor.

Air Force officials also are concerned winter snow and runoff could expose other aircraft parts that may be hazardous. Sergeant Wood explained many aircraft parts contain highly pressurized gasses or flammable components that could be dangerous if disturbed.

Col. Jack McMullen, the 3rd Wing commander, praised the support the Air Force has received from state and local officials and Alaskans who live in the vicinity of the crash.

"The people who live and work in this area understand how challenging the weather and terrain can be, and they've been incredibly generous with help and advice," Colonel McMullen said. "I want to make sure we do everything we can to keep those folks and other visitors safe until we can get back in there to complete the restoration process."

[buglerbilly]

What Russia’s Stealth Fighter Developments Mean for America (excerpt)

(Source: Heritage Foundation; issued Dec. 1, 2010)

Abstract: Russia’s development of the PAK FA fifth-generation stealth fighter could challenge American air supremacy, especially if Russia sells the PAK FA to its usual buyers of military equipment.

In the U.S., closure of the F-22 production line has severely limited America’s ability to respond to PAK FA proliferation by building more F-22s and potentially selling them to U.S. allies.

The U.S. needs to revise its assessment of U.S. air superiority needs and then explore ways to modernize and strengthen the U.S. tactical fighter force.

With America’s closure of the F-22 production line and the recent debut of Russia’s PAK FA fifth-generation stealth fighter, American air supremacy for the foreseeable future is not as assured as the U.S. Department of Defense once predicted. Indeed, Lieutenant General David A. Deptula, recently departed Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance in the U.S. Air Force, recently made the startling announcement: “For the first time, our claim to air supremacy is in jeopardy.… The dominance we’ve enjoyed in the aerial domain is no longer ours for the taking.”

To preserve traditional U.S. margins of military technological superiority, Congress should review potentially outdated requirements and projections, and policymakers should push defense officials to enact more forward-looking budgeting and acquisition strategies for U.S. fighter fleets. Increased investment in modernization and new partnerships with allies like Japan and Israel will be necessary to prevent the airpower balance from tilting in favor of the Russian and Chinese air forces and to hedge against the potentially destabilizing proliferation of Russia’s PAK FA fighter to unstable actors, non-state groups, and/or terrorism-sponsoring rogue states around the world. For example, if Syria or Iran acquires the PAK FA, it could provide the fighter to the non-state group Hezbollah to form a proxy air force against Israel.

U.S. Air Power Assumptions Challenged

Defense analysts, officials, and industry personnel have long believed that the U.S. F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter would not face serious threats from foreign fifth-generation fighters for the next 20 years.2 In September 2009,

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates repudiated claims of a looming “fighter gap”—a deficit between the services’ fighter aircraft inventories and their operational requirements. “[T]he more compelling gap,” he argued, “is the deep chasm between the air capabilities of the United States and those of other nations.” In an earlier speech, he argued: China…is projected to have no fifth generation aircraft by 2020. And by 2025, the gap only widens. The U.S. will have approximately 1,700 of the most advanced fifth generation fighters versus a handful of comparable aircraft for the Chinese.”

The Secretary’s claims may now be in doubt. With the cancellation of the F-22 and closure of its production line combined with various development delays in the F-35 program—the mainstay of America’s future fighter fleets—U.S. fighter inventories may be significantly smaller in coming years than initially planned. For example, initial operational capability for the F-35A, the U.S. Air Force version of the F-35, was recently pushed back two years to the end of 2015, now changed to 2016 for both the F-35A and the Navy’s F-35C. These delays often increase production costs, forcing reductions in the overall buy. Regrettably, other fiscal pressures will likely squeeze procurement budgets further in the coming years and prevent the expenditures needed to reach planned F-35 force levels.

Meanwhile, Russian fighter and military modernization efforts are proceeding rapidly, defying the expectations of many. (end of excerpt)

Click here for the full report (19 pages in PDF format) on the Heritage Foundation website.

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2010/pdf/bg2494.pdf

-ends-

[McFriday]

Bug,
I read that 'report' yesterday [from another source] and some of it's references on major points from are APA's NOTAMS and Dr. Kopp.
It appears to be yet another way of pushing their [APA's] POV by another pen, much of what the author's push as 'fact' re. the PAKFA's super skill set, eg it's Klingon cloaking ability, is based mostly on Dr. Kopp's meticulous research.
The Heritage Foundation's other essay's appear to be largely anti-Obama rants on every subject he's ever tried to address, leading this little black duck to put them in the 'less than un-biased experts basket'.
I much prefer facts to prejudiced points of view but facts are very hard to come by in the F22-F35 public 'debates'. LOL
Cheers,
Mac

[buglerbilly]

Mac,

I hesitated to publish that yesterday but in the interests of black humour decided to do so..................

[McFriday]

Mac,

I hesitated to publish that yesterday but in the interests of black humour decided to do so..................

Bug,
Here's me thinking it may have been a sly method of seeing if your subjects are actually perused in depth! LOL
Black humour? No pun intended for their other favorite rant subject of course!
Cheers Mate,
Mac

[Tim]

My favourite part was where they said Hezbollah was going to get PAK-FAs. I laughed, I cried.

[McFriday]

"My favourite part was where they said Hezbollah was going to get PAK-FAs. I laughed, I cried." LOL

Tim,
I wasn't far into it before I started saying WTF? to myself but I too totally lost it on that pearl!
APA et al, the gift that keeps on giving...
Of course if a PAKFA [of a certain Asian Air Force] de-cloaks in the circuit over Williamtown, or worse over the ninth fairway at Newcastle GC on medal day, I will deny all knowledge of this correspondence etc. etc.
Not sure what the RAAF could do, given its awesome capabilities but a few well directed 6 irons [using Titleist ProV1s of course] from the members may well get through!!
Cheers,
Mac

[Tim]

I'm struck by the urge to write a rip-off of Alien for the APA guys, it'll be called "Aileron" where some intrepid aeronautical engineers are exploring an abandoned military base, and one of them finds a Saturn engine that suddenly attaches itself to his face, only to drop off before the others can figure out what it did. Then, as they're all enjoying dinner and discussing plans for a 21st century F-111, a PAK-FA bursts out of the victim's chest and rockets across the air-sea gap. At supercruise, no one can hear you scream.

That's probably enough beers for me tonight...

[Gubler, A.]

I'm struck by the urge to write a rip-off of Alien for the APA guys,

Have you seen one of their latest video presentos. Hezbollah deploy PAK-FAs from cave to hammer IDF F-15s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4et4QzUDno

[McFriday]

[1] "At supercruise, no one can hear you scream."

[2] "Have you seen one of their latest video presentos. Hezbollah deploy PAK-FAs from cave to hammer IDF F-15s."

If pissing myself laughing at [1] wasn't enough the imagery [2] of young Carlo and Peters' [it is them isn't it?] Eureka moment made it hurt.
Talk about the right and left bower, classy very classy!
Cheers,
Mac

[buglerbilly]

DATE:07/12/10

SOURCE:Flight International

Simulator vendors vie for T-X trainer order

By Stephen Trimble

It will take more than an aircraft to replace the Northrop T-38C Talon as the US Air Force's advanced trainer for fighter and bomber pilots.

Ground-based training systems, such as full-flight simulators and procedures trainers, have made inroads in all areas of military pilot training. But simulation technology is poised to assume a new level of importance as the USAF considers a replacement for its 50-year-old fleet of advanced trainers for all fighter and bomber pilots.

Part of this projected shift is driven by the US military's desire to reduce the cost of training pilots. In fiscal year 2009 alone, according to a recent analysis by the Frost & Sullivan consultancy, the Department of Defense spent $22.2 billion on training devices, with a proportional demand for a return on investment.

"There's an expectation in [the office of the secretary of defence] that, if a new training system is being bought, I would expect training to move from the aircraft into the ground-based training systems to get some cost savings just from the technology that's coming forward," says Mark McGraw, Boeing's vice-president of training systems and services.


Practising emergency procedures for a fire warning on take-off in a T-38 simulator: ground training is increasing in importance for the USAF. Picture: Steve Thurow/US Air Force

TRAINING SORTIES


Boeing predicts more ground-based training. Picture: Boeing

The USAF divides training sorties for student pilots with a split of roughly 75-25%, with about 82 flights in the T-38C and 30 in aircrew training devices. For the advanced, "introduction to fighter fundamentals" (IFF) phase of the curriculum, the USAF requires about 80h of instruction in the classroom, 11 simulator "sorties" and 21 rides in the two-seat T-38C. That division of roughly two-thirds flight training and one-third ground training is likely to be narrowed as simulator technology improves.

Another major factor is the challenge posed by the growing complexity of combat aircraft. The USAF is shifting from fourth-generation fighters, such as the Boeing F-15 and Lockheed Martin F-16, to fifth-generation "flying combat systems" such as the Lockheed F-22 and F-35A.

The F-35A, in particular, adds new sensors, including a distributed aperture system, and new missions, such as armed reconnaissance and the suppression or destruction of enemy air defences. Managing these new sensors and role must be squeezed into the USAF's IFF curriculum - the last stage of formal training before pilots are inducted into operational units.

In addition to new sensors and missions, fifth-generation fighters uniquely share a common characteristic that will challenge how to prepare pilots for operational units. The F-22 and F-35 are single-seat fighters, with no two-seat versions for key training missions.

The USAF is aware of the problem. A market survey issued earlier this year lists five training requirements that "lend themselves" to a two-seat trainer. High-g manoeuvres and air refuelling are conducted in two-seat aircraft for safety reasons. Three other training missions - night vision imaging systems, dogfighting and managing datalinks - are conducted in two-seat aircraft for efficiency reasons, according to the USAF market survey.

As the T-38C is replaced, the USAF is entertaining new ideas, suggesting the air refuelling mission could be downloaded from a flying sortie to a full-flight simulator.

ADVANCING TECHNOLOGY


Flying an F-16 - from the ground. Picture: HD World

Moreover, technology is advancing rapidly in the simulator industry. Although no breakthroughs are expected to revolutionise the simulator market within the timeframe of the T-X competition, the industry is quickly deploying improvements in visual acuity and motion realism. These upgrades, including 20/20 visual acuity projection, are driving USAF officials to consider adjusting the balance of training tools between the cockpit and the simulator.

Lenny Genna, president of the Link Simulation and Training division of L-3 Communications, notes that the T-38 replacement is not due to arrive for at least six years. For a technology driven by Moore's Law, which predicts a doubling of processing power every 18 months, that allows the industry about four major cycles of computing upgrades.

"A lot changes in this industry in six years," Genna says. "The amount of processing power and the amount of content we will be able to provide in a visual system will be much easier to obtain."

The challenge for the USAF will be maintaining support for the T-38C replacement programme as pressure rises on spending budgets. Overall defence spending is expected to be steady, but modernisation accounts are forecasted to decline as personnel and operations costs increase.

For T-X to remain on track, the USAF's leaders must commit to buying trainers even as budgets to acquire combat aircraft get squeezed over the next several years.

An analysis of alternatives for the T-X advanced trainer programme is under way, having been delayed by about three months. But the USAF still plans to field a "family of systems", to include an aircraft and full flight simulator, by FY2017. The USAF wants all aircraft and simulators delivered seven years later, although follow-on orders by the US Navy could extend production for aircraft and simulators by several years. The scope of the programme also could expand to include a light attack version of the basic trainer.

Expansion is a possibility, but the USAF is focusing requirements for the T-X competition on the trainer mission alone.

Each of the major airframe suppliers has hosted the USAF team of analysts working on the alternatives study in August and September. More recently, the team paid visits to simulator vendors, including L-3 Link, Genna says.

The bidders expect to see a draft version of the alternatives study in the first quarter of 2011. Perhaps more importantly, the DoD's FY2012 budget request will be released in early February. Industry officials do not expect to see major changes in the funding line for the T-X programme, as the alternatives study is being completed too late to inform DoD's FY2012 budgeting process. The USAF is not expected to commit major funds for T-X until at least the FY2013 budget.

Until then, the USAF has only left a placeholder for the T-X competition as a new-start programme in this year's budget, with about $30 million budgeted up to FY2015. That is enough to complete studies and organise a programme office, but not nearly the investment level required to support a development programme in time for a FY2017 service entry.

As the USAF continues to plan for the T-X programme's acquisition strategy and funding profile, the size of the opportunity has attracted a wide range of potential bidders for both platforms and simulators. The contract is expected to lead to production orders for between 350 and 500 aircraft, the biggest prize by far in the global military trainer industry.

Alenia Aermacchi has proposed the M-346 rebranded as the T-100, BAE Systems has touted the Hawk T2/128 and Lockheed Martin/Korea Aerospace Industries has offered the T-50. Meanwhile, Boeing and Northrop Grumman are considering options, with the former considering an all-new purpose-built airframe for T-X. Northrop has the option of proposing a service-life extension for the T-38.

Aircraft platforms have made the biggest headlines in the competition, but the simulator technology is at least equally important.

CAE believes the world market for military-operated full-flight simulators up to 2015 is about 60 a year. By that standard, winning the T-X contract is not just a major aircraft order.

The USAF has said little about its needs for simulators as part of the T-38 replacement. But a market survey by the Air Education Training Command this year asked industry to provide pricing based on an order for 35 or 50 simulators. The top end of the USAF estimate represents nearly a full year of output for the global military simulator market.

Simulators are often thought of as complements to flight training, but T-X may elevate the status of ground-based training devices for future USAF pilots. The change is not driven because the USAF expects new technology breakthroughs to revolutionise how simulators operate.

[buglerbilly]

DATE:08/12/10

SOURCE:Flight International

Fatigue test plots F-16 future for USAF

By Stephen Trimble

Lockheed Martin has received a US Air Force F-16 Block 50 fighter set aside to undergo a three-year series of fatigue life tests that will play a major role in deciding the fate of hundreds of similar aircraft.

Over the next 15 years, the USAF inventory is projected to dip as much as 10% below the required threshold of 2,000 fighters. As a result, service officials are considering extending the service life of as many as 300 F-16s by as much as 50%, to 12,000 flight hours.

But first the USAF must find out how much service life remains among the roughly 1,130 F-16s currently in service, and what repairs are required to keep some of the aircraft flying.

Lockheed plans to start the three-year, continuous testing process that will log the equivalent of about 24,000h of flight time on the airframe.

"The USAF is about to put us under contract," says Bill McHenry, director of F-16 business development.

Air force officials have not been eager to invest in prolonging the F-16, but the original vision to transfer to an all-stealth fleet before 2030 has been overtaken by events. Capping production of Lockheed F-22s at 187 aircraft has forced the USAF to spend $900 million to equip 176 Boeing F-15Cs with the Raytheon APG-63(V)3 active electronically scanned array radar.

With the Lockheed F-35A's entry into service delayed to at least 2016, the "ageing F-16 fleet may be required to remain in service longer than currently planned", according to an August report by the US Government Accountability Office.

McHenry, however, believes the structural modifications for F-16s were an inevitable step in the transition from fourth-generation fighters to the F-22 and F-35.

"The USAF is coming forth and dispelling the myth that says 'I'm going to get rid of my fourth-generation airplanes tomorrow'," McHenry says. "It's going to take a long period of time to transition to an all fifth-generation fleet."

In a report submitted by the USAF to Congress earlier this year, buying all-new F-16s was practically ruled out. The air force estimated that a service life extension programme of existing F-16s would be cheaper by 80-85%.

The USAF is considering more than structural upgrades for the F-16s. Both Raytheon and Northrop Grumman are offering to retrofit the type with AESA sensors - the Raytheon active combat radar (RACR) and the selectable agile beam radar (SABR).

"They have their opinion of how easy and hard it is to put their AESA in the airplane. Well, we have our own opinion," McHenry says.

If some F-16s are preserved, the USAF also may consider other sensor upgrades, including the integration of an infrared search and track sensor and digital radar warning system. Many of the same upgrades have been approved already for the F-15, but McHenry questions whether preserving more F-16s would save money.

"It makes the most sense to extend the life of the airplane that costs less to operate," he says. "If the aircraft is a bridge to something, you ought to make sure you're bridging with an airplane that's not costing you an arm or leg."

[buglerbilly]

Raytheon Awarded AESA Radar Upgrade Contract for F-15C Aircraft

(Source: Raytheon Company; issued December 7, 2010)

EL SEGUNDO, Calif. --- Raytheon Company has received a contract from Boeing for the production of advanced APG-63(V)3 Active Electronically Scanned Array radars.

The U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Air National Guard will receive radars from the contract and deliveries will begin in the second quarter of 2011. The radars are intended to enhance the performance of deployed F-15C aircraft and will replace the current mechanically scanned radar systems. With its superior targeting and tracking capabilities, the APG-63(V)3 will enable aircrews to detect and identify targets well beyond the range of the existing systems.

"Our APG-63(V)3 AESA radars offer significant reliability and maintainability benefits, resulting in lower life-cycle costs," said Steve Schwarzkopf, F-15 program director, Tactical Airborne Systems. "These systems are designed to give pilots the ultimate operational advantage and bring them home safely."

Raytheon Company, with 2009 sales of $25 billion, is a technology and innovation leader specializing in defense, homeland security and other government markets throughout the world. With headquarters in Waltham, Mass., Raytheon employs 75,000 people worldwide.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

DATE:05/01/11

SOURCE:Flight International

USAF nears final piece of airborne ISR rebirth for Afghanistan

By Stephen Trimble

The US Air Force is within two months of installing the final piece of a broad shake-up of its approach to airborne intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) in Afghanistan.

Sierra Nevada's Gorgon Stare pod is expected to be deployed to Afghanistan before April. The pod adds as many as 12 video cameras to the General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper unmanned air vehicle.

On the ground, processors can further split up the video feeds into 50 different spots, allowing a single aircraft to stare across a city like an unblinking eye.

The USAF confirms that the pod remains in final tests before deployment, which was originally scheduled for late 2010.

Gorgon Stare - named for Medusa and her sisters in Greek mythology - represents the final piece of a broader airborne ISR strategy hastily launched by USAF leadership in May 2008. The move came only one month after Secretary of Defense Robert Gates publicly called out the service's top officials for moving too slowly to support ground troops in Afghanistan.

By the end of June 2008, Gates had fired the USAF's top leaders - Michael Wynne and Gen Michael Moseley - even as the new strategy started moving forward.

Until virtually that moment, USAF officials had stood by as the US Army and US Marine Corps had launched a new wave of airborne ISR assets to support the unique needs of counter-insurgency campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In particular, the USMC had deployed a system called Angel Fire, using Beechcraft King Air 90s equipped with wide field of view cameras featuring instant playback capability.

Seven years after the Afghan war began, the USAF responded by launching three initiatives in May 2008. It launched the MC-12 Liberty programme, which has rapidly fielded nearly 40 King Air 350ERs to Afghanistan.

The air force also hired 2,500 intelligence analysts to help process the influx of new intelligence data. Gorgon Stare forms the third piece of the new strategy.

The Sierra Nevada pod is intended to solve the problem of a chronic shortage of MQ-9s. The USAF is funded to operate 50 continuous "orbits" by MQ-9s around the world. Until now, each MQ-9 came equipped with a single camera, providing a "soda straw" view of the battlespace. Fielding Gorgon Stare means one of those orbits will be equipped with as many as 12 cameras generating up to 50 video feeds.

The number of Gorgon Stare pods remains relatively small. The USAF has been funded to deploy one set of pods this year and in 2012, plus a third set of pods in fiscal year 2014, leaving 47 orbits without the system.

[buglerbilly]

USAF Revives Blackswift Hypersonic-Like Plan

Jan 12, 2011

By Guy Norris guy_norris@aviationweek.com
Los Angeles

The U.S. Air Force is studying a hypersonic road map which calls for development of ambitious high-speed weapons and a high-speed reusable flight research vehicle (HSRFRV), slightly larger than the Darpa-led Blackswift Mach 6 demonstrator cancelled in 2008.

Both high-speed elements emerged from a government-industry workshop meeting in Washington DC held on Dec. 8-9, and covered development priorities designed to maintain the recent impetus in hypersonics gained with the X-51A WaveRider and to some extent the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle and HTV-2 hypersonic test.

The plan, discussed by Steven Walker, deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for science, technology and engineering, at the recent AIAA Aerospace Sciences conference in Orlando, Fla., includes parallel development paths towards both hypersonic weapons and the reusable testbed.

The weapons path would be relatively fast-track, with development of a demonstrator over five years and first flight by October 2016. Three major options for the demonstrator include an “X-51-like” vehicle that would, like the WaveRider, be air-launched from a B-52. A second option would cover development of a “tactically-compliant” high-speed version that could be carried by internally-carried by the Northrop Grumman B-2, and externally by the Lockheed Martin F-35. A third option, also involving a B-2/F-35 capable launch, would be an all-new vehicle configuration.

The more advanced element of the road map is Walker’s call for a re-usable demonstrator incorporating a turbine-based combined cycle (TBCC), as well as the ability to take-off and land on a runway. As with the Blackswift project, the HSRFRV’s TBCC will combine a high-Mach turbojet with a dual-mode ramjet/scramjet, the two sharing a common inlet and nozzle. Unlike Blackswift’s TBCC, however, which was designed to power the demonstrator from takeoff to a very short period of five-minutes at Mach 6 cruise and back, the HSRFRV appears to be aimed at more ambitious goals.

Walker says the proposed vehicle will have the capability for up to 15 minutes at Mach 4 plus. In addition it will have limited duration at higher Mach numbers. Mindful of the pitfalls that have swallowed up so many previous hypersonic goals, not the least of them the X-30 National Aerospace Plane (NASP), the plan calls for a steady development schedule towards a first flight in October 2021. Walker says “the team feels if the money is available we can get there”.

Speaking to Aviation Week, Air Force Research Laboratory X-51A program manager Charles Brink says “the Air Force, under Steve’s leadership, has been doing a good job of herding all the cats, and coming up with a more streamlined, coherent high-speed vehicle roadmap.” The completion of the X-51A, he says, will provide data that “plays into the rules and tools development” for use in the following weapons and platforms developments. Brink adds that the Air force is aiming to conduct the second attempted flight of the X-51A in late March, having abandoned a potential window this month owing to unavailability of a B-52 launch aircraft.

However, despite converging with national priority development goals outlined by support groups such as the U.S. Hypersonics Industry Team, some have expressed caution over the plan. AIAA president and former Air Force Chief Scientist Mark Lewis believes more emphasis should be placed on building-up experience using “weaponized” X-51s. Speaking to Aviation Week he says, “the X-51 is an important step towards a potential high-speed weapon. Four flights is too few, and we should put more funding into more flights and build-off that platform. To me the logical step is to push out to multiple minutes of flight time – 15 and 30 mins – and work towards an operational system. You don’t have to have a turbine to do this,” he adds. “Be bold, but be realistic in that reach. If not you risk going back to a NASP-like failure,” he warns.

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

'Son of Blackswift' Back on the Hypersonic Roadmap?

Posted by Guy Norris at 1/12/2011 8:34 AM CST

The U.S. Air Force is drawing up a new hypersonic development road map which, to the delight of many and the fear of some, revives the concept of a reusable flight research vehicle similar to the abandoned Blackswift.

The surprise plan to reincarnate an ambitious, horizontal takeoff and landing hypersonic vehicle also repeats the equally-difficult challenge of powering it with a turbine-based combined cycle. The high-speed reusable flight research vehicle (HSRFRV), as it is dubbed, is not due to fly until October 2021 - which may be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your perspective.

For many hypersonic veterans, living through the vicissitudes of the post-NASP era, the rise and fall of Darpa’s Blackswift was a reminder that technological ambition can quickly be eclipsed by funding expediency. Ten years is a long time to wait for the axe to fall again, particularly as the money and resources already spent may have been better allocated on other, more certain routes. This is essentially the argument of more cautious voices such as AIAA president and former Air Force Chief Scientist Mark Lewis who believes more emphasis should be placed on building-up experience using “weaponized” X-51s.

For others, however, the goal represents a clarion call for both the Air Force and U.S. industry. For the pragmatists celebrating the birth of a coherent hypersonic road map and a follow-on strategy to the X-51, the timeline of the HSRFRV seems within the boundary of ‘do-able.’ Certainly Steven Walker, Deputy Asst. Sec of the Air Force for Science, Technology & Engineering, and the former Blackswift program manager at Darpa, believes so.


Roadmap could include weaponized X-51-like variants. (AFRL)

While HSRFRV is further down the road, the nearer term destinations appear to be a well-thought out series of optional high-speed weapon concepts. The weapons path would be relatively fast-track, with development of a demonstrator over five years and first flight by October 2016. Three major options for the demonstrator include an “X-51-like” vehicle that would, like the WaveRider, be air-launched from a B-52. A second option would cover development of a “tactically-compliant” high-speed version that could be internally-carried by the Northrop Grumman B-2, and externally by the Lockheed Martin F-35. A third option, also involving a B-2/F-35 capable launch, would be an all-new vehicle configuration.

[buglerbilly]

Fiscal 2012 Could Boost Bomber, F-16, F-15

Jan 19, 2011

By Amy Butler
Washington



A new F-16 life extension, bomber and space-procurement plan will be included in the U.S. Air Force’s forthcoming Fiscal 2012 budget proposal.

These efforts are possible during a time of belt-tightening because the service found $34 billion worth of projects to cut in order to fund higher-priority initiatives, says Air Force Secretary Michael Donley.

Absent from Donley’s comments last week was mention of the budding effort to buy a new fast-jet trainer (Alenia, BAE and Lockheed Martin/Korea Aerospace Industries are poised to compete for this) as well as a replacement for aging Bell Helicopter UH-1Ns supporting nuclear convoys and executive lift. Their omission from his remarks indicates they are likely lower priorities.

Some of the new programs are an attempt to stave off a decline in capabilities brought on by yet another delay to Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program and a 124-aircraft cut in the buy (AW&ST Jan. 10, p. 24). Improvements are needed for the Lockheed Martin F-16 and Boeing F-15 fleets to keep them viable while Lockheed works through testing problems and produces the JSF at a slower than predicted rate. As of last year, Air Force officials said their fighter shortfall reaching out to 2024 would be 185 aircraft—down from a predicted 800-fighter shortage a year earlier—because the service opted to allow more risk into its war planning.

The gap estimate of 185 units, however, was predicated upon buying 80 F-35s annually at full-rate production beginning in Fiscal 2016; with the F-35 acquisition slipping, reaching full-rate production will take longer and the fighter shortfall could grow.

The Air Force recently retired roughly 250 fighters, 129 of which are old F-16s, as part of a force-reduction strategy designed to save money.

Service officials have studied what work might be required to extend the lives of up to 1,021 F-16C/Ds in the fleet today. The Air Force is crafting a path forward for an F-16 service-life extension (SLEP). “As we consider the impact of this conservative approach to Joint Strike Fighter . . . we anticipated we would need to take a look at F-16 SLEPs,” Donley says. “That question is more ‘how much and when and what kind,’ rather than an ‘if.’”

Last year, USAF Lt. Gen. Philip Breedlove, then-deputy chief of staff for operations, said that to extend the lives of about 300 F-16s with digital radio-frequency memory equipment; new active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radars; and improved structures would cost about $9.7 million per aircraft. This would extend platform life to 2020; the average age of the fleet is 20 years, says Mark Vania, F-16 program manager at Air Combat Command. A company has not yet been selected for the upgrade program or radar modification.

Donley says final details of how many F-16s will be upgraded, and with what equipment, are to come with the budget release.

The service also plans to accelerate installation of Raytheon AESA radars on the F-15C/E fleet. Completion of work on the C will move up by one year, and the E installations will be advanced by eight years to 2024. The AESA radars will allow the F-15s and F-16s to detect smaller, slower targets from longer ranges.

Donley says funding will be reallocated in the budget request to buy 16 F-35 simulators for pilot training. It could take the aircraft a year beyond the current plan to reach Eglin AFB, Fla., where the pilot and maintainer training unit is located. Moreover, the aircraft’s ability to contribute to meaningful pilot training will rely on how quickly the test program can expand the flight envelope in all three variants. It’s possible that the training unit will use the aircraft first for maintainer training.

Donley notes that more progress is needed in software and testing for all three F-35 variants. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has slipped the conclusion of flight testing from mid-2015 to the end of the first quarter of 2016, and the department has “taken an even more conservative approach to production rates as we go forward,” says Donley.

The Air Force is the lead customer for the conventional F-35A and last year slipped its initial operational capability date to 2016 from 2014. Donley says it’s “implied” by the new development schedule that the in-service date will shift further.

Meanwhile, Donley is revealing a few details about the long-awaited Air Force program for a long-range, penetrating bomber. The on-again, off-again effort finally received a strong endorsement earlier this month from Gates, who notes that the bomber should be optionally manned.

Those who had pushed against adding unmanned controls argued that a nuclear platform must have a pilot on board. Donley, however, advocates a shift in thinking about the bomber.

Though the aircraft must be “nuclear-certified,” he says industry should not assume that the platform will support the nuclear mission immediately. “We are really making a shift here from designing bombers for the nuclear mission and having them have conventional capability. That shift now has been reversed,” he says. “We are looking at long-term force structure and long-range strike capabilities that we are assuming are going to be used on the conventional side, because that is how they have been used.”

The Air Force’s approach must be conservative to produce a platform on a set schedule and in the quantities needed; this likely translates to using technologies that are already mature, rather than funding cutting-edge development work. Donley declined to identify that schedule or the desired number of aircraft. In a program started a few years ago, officials notionally discussed 100 aircraft.

“In contrast to the program canceled in 2009, . . . development of this new bomber will leverage more mature technologies and, we think, will reduce risk in the program and allow us to deliver with greater confidence on the schedule and in quantifies sufficient to support the long-term sustainment of bomber capabilities after the current fleets of B-1s and B-52s continue to retire,” Donley told an audience in Washington hosted by the Air Force Association. “We’ll constrain the requirements for this platform, and there is certainly more emphasis on affordability.”

Likely prime competitors for this work are Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman.

As for the notoriously ill-managed military space program, smoother funding is also a priority. In the forthcoming budget, the Air Force plans to request money for five Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELVs) annually made by United Launch Alliance; this represents the number needed by the service, NASA and the National Reconnaissance Office.

The goal is to stabilize the buy and provide the industrial base a more predictable demand from the customer. The Fiscal 2010-11 budgets asked for three of the EELVs. The five-per-year rate is the minimum requirement for EELV production capability across the government, as validated by a Broad Area Review conducted by USAF Gen. (ret.) Larry Welch last year.

Finally, the service also plans to begin “block buys” of satellites “even when they may be only as small as two,” Donley says (AW&ST Dec. 13, p. 30). This is intended to stabilize satellite funding, which has suffered from fits and starts during the past decade. The first program to undergo this block-buy approach will be the Lockheed Martin Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) system, “Our challenge in the satellite world is that we have been waiting until the last minute to produce a new generation of satellites,” Donley says. “In a way, that has cost us tremendously.”

Photo: USAF

[buglerbilly]

Bring Back the F-22!

January 19, 2011

Only two years after Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ decision to end production of the F-22 Raptor at 187 aircraft, the program may be poised to rise like a phoenix from the ashes. When Gates made his decision, it was on the assumption that other countries — notably Russia and China — would not develop their own fifth-generation fighters for at least another decade or more. Yet, even as the Secretary met with his counterparts from the Chinese military, that institution announced the first test flight of the J-20, their entrant into the fifth-generation fighter competition. In addition, Russia has announced a cooperative program with India to build a similar aircraft, currently known as the T-50. Today, Secretary Gates’ threat projections look woefully wrong.

The emergence of the J-20 is but one example of China’s broad and deep investments in advanced military capabilities. Admiral Willard, Commander of U.S. Pacific Command, recently informed the world that China’s anti-ship ballistic missile system had reached its initial operating capability. This is a system with no parallel in the world; the U.S. has nothing like it. In addition, the defense department’s annual report on China’s military activities paints a darkening picture of increasing investments in nuclear and diesel-electric submarines, mine warfare, advanced surface-to-air missile systems, ballistic missiles, space surveillance and cyber warfare.

In his January 6 announcements of the results of the Department of Defense’s efficiency drive, the Secretary spoke about shifting much of the money saved into new programs clearly intended to counter the growing Chinese threat. He made particular mention of the funding of development of a new strategic bomber, one necessitated by the growing “anti-access” threat. This is a code word for China. He also called for additional deployments of missile defense interceptors both abroad and in the continental United States. This clearly reflects concerns about the ballistic missile programs in China, North Korea and Iran.

In view of the new appreciation of the threat it is time to bring back the F-22. Recent war games by Western think tanks have concluded that the projected U.S. tactical fighter force would be overwhelmed by the sheer number of less capable third and fourth-generation Chinese fighters. Add in the J-20 and the outlook for the U.S. military becomes decidedly bleak. Even when the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is deployed this will not provide the U.S. with enough offensive capability given the limited number of F-22s that will be combat capable.

The F-22 has capabilities unlike any other fighter in the world. Its stealthiness allows the F-22 to engage hostile aircraft before it is even detected. The F-22’s high operational ceiling and speed creates a kinematic advantage that allows for engagements at the maximum range for its AMRAAM missiles. The combination of supercruise and stealth allows the F-22 to evade ground defenses and to escape air-to-air threats.

Ultimately, war has always been a numbers game. At some point, technologically inferior but numerically superior opponents will simply overwhelm the side with the better weapons. In conflicts between technologically equal adversaries numbers will determine the winner. While the F-22 is likely to be a better airplane than the J-20, 187 are not going to be enough to deal with a Chinese Air Force that is numerically superior and closing the technology gap with the U.S. Air Force. Before it is too late, the Obama Administration needs to resurrect the F-22 program and buy a couple hundred more.

This analysis originally published by Daniel Goure, Ph.D. of the Lexington Institute

[buglerbilly]

USAF Assesses New KC-10 Upgrade Bids

Jan 20, 2011

By Amy Butler



Contractors submitted revised proposals for the U.S. Air Force’s KC-10 CNS/ATM upgrade work this month after the service discovered it botched the first competitive round last year that resulted in a $216 million award going to Boeing.

Boeing was ordered to stop work on the contract in October owing to a mistake made by the Air Force in the original competition. Air Force Col. Michael Schmidt, contractor logistics support program director for the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center (where the contract is managed), acknowledged a “need for corrective action associated with the original source selection,” but has not specified the nature of the problem.

Industry sources have suggested there was a misunderstanding about whether a piece of equipment was to be furnished by the government during the original competition.

Competitors from the original round were invited to resubmit bids if they were deemed “in the competitive range,” though Air Force officials declined to identify how this status was determined , to maintain the integrity of the source selection.

Boeing has submitted a proposal, and the company is “confident that the solution we originally provided and our current solution is superior,” according to spokesman Scott Day. Meanwhile, the company is likely trying to keep as much of the team together as possible, despite the stop-work order.

A General Electric/L-3 Communications team also has submitted a new bid. Northrop Grumman, which participated in the original competition last year, opted not to submit this time .

Air Force officials say they intend to award the contract no later than June. Boeing won its contract for this work in June 2010.

The contract will cover two aircraft modified to support FAA certification and flight testing. Options will be included for the upgrade of all 59 KC-10 aircraft.

Air Force officials still intend to finish the installations by Sept. 30, 2015, to achieve full operational capability as originally planned, despite the year-long hiatus required to collect new bids.

The work must be done by then because restrictions will go into effect limiting aircraft with the old cockpit equipment to less-efficient air routes.

Photo: USAF

[buglerbilly]

Scrap AWACS, JSTARS; Plough Dough Into F-35, Wynne Says

By Colin Clark Monday, January 31st, 2011 12:52 pm



Former Air Force Secretary Mike Wynne wants the Air Force to get rid of large surveillance and reconnasisance aircraft such as AWACS and JSTARS, which are vulnerable to attack because of their huge radar cross-sections, and take the money saved and shove it into the Joint Strike Fighter program.

Wynne made his arguments on the website Second Line of Defense, run by the international defense consultant Robbin Laird. I spoke with Wynne this morning. His essential argument is that large aircraft such as these, while possessing excellent capabilities, are so vulnerable in time of war that the enormous amounts of money spent paying the large crews needed to fly and maintain these systems would be better spent making F-35s into the flying intelligence and targeting networks that they are designed to be.

“The F-35s are far more survivable and therefore effective,” he said. Combine F-22s and F-35s with a capability like Gorgon Stare and you would have a difficult to beat combination of highly survivable intelligence gathering and offensive capabilities.


Following is the full text of Wynne’s commentary.


The Air Force as well as the rest of the Armed Forces and the rest of the United States government faces an unusual crisis in budgeting. All are scrambling about trying to determine the least-bad parts of the budget to trim, or, in worst case, cut. Clearly this needs radical thought, but should be driven by mission in each case. When survivability is added as a requirement, and the threat is assessed as it is seen today, this becomes easier. Let’s consider the end of the large aircraft ISR fleet.

The large aircraft command and control as well as the large aircraft intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance fleet are artifacts of a different era, the era of satellites with insufficient range and scope, the era where remotely piloted vehicles were small and not worthy of the name C4ISR. Now, however, times have changed. The MC-12 is highly touted as the solution where one dominates the air domain. The Global Hawk and Predator B reigns supreme in many aspects of the fight. The need for the large C4ISR platforms has drifted away.

In a future era, where the air domain is disputed, can we really risk the large, populated C4ISR airplanes when we actually have penetrating stealthy aircraft with better radars and M-Int devices, and the 3-digit surface-to-air missiles are valid to 200 or 300 miles? This is well beyond the range for the systems known today. No wonder the Air Force is looking to partner with the Navy on the P-8 follow-on; there is no survivable mission when you get far off shore. Indeed, our ships are protected by an array of surface-to-air missiles with standoff range enough to truly discourage errant approach by these very expensive aircraft.

This is well beyond the range for the systems known today.

Recently, in a paper titled “Renorming the Asymmetric Advantage, I cited the need to leverage available stealthy technologies and their sensors to stay alive on the battlefield of the future. There seem to continue to be a belief system that indicates that the enemy will allow these airplanes to operate with impunity, but will otherwise attack the tanker aircraft that support TAC air assets. Where does this logic prevail? Well, for the most part, within the ISR force structure and the contractor community that supports this force structure. Strangely, it also dwells in the hears and wallets of the air combat community that pretends that they will have a very hard time surviving a future air battle yet defers to the ISR community for leveraging the sensor assets they and they alone carry.

I would strongly recommend to the present air staff that they do something radical, and that is to argue to stand down any C4ISR asset that is larger than an F-22 or F-35, and ask the question: what gap does this create, and how best is this gap filled? This is the true battlefield outcome. Much like thinking about a day without space, let’s really think about just how long the force will have access to the large C4ISR assets. And while we are at this analysis, consider how many lives that we systematically put at risk when reach back seems so very satisfactory in every other element of the expeditionary command and control, in this Internet age where satellites dwell and relay tremendous data streams and where Global Hawks and Predators infuse CAOCS with highly reliable target and intelligence information.

NATO is presently arguing whether they should own an AGS, and in response to September 11, 2001, they very generously allowed the deployment by the United States of their Airborne Warning and Control aircraft, illustrating that when used in the defense, there may well be merit in the C4ISR fleet. It is also noteworthy that in the Mid-East there is a small enough battle space that if they are aloft, they could provide some warning from incoming enemy aircraft. It is also known that in that role, they won’t last the first 10 minutes of the exchange. The United States is opting for missile defense and essentially integrated air defense system for missiles. Aircraft in that case are relatively easy to spot, and many countries are in fact installing such integrated air defenses around their countries.

Secretary Gates likes to eloquently equate a lack of use in the current engagements for assets he doesn’t wish to fund, and yet here is a marvelous opportunity to save an entire force structure. Where is the argument that they are a serious element of the fight in AFPAK? How long has it been since they were employed in Iraq? This argument needs to be seriously examined, because perhaps they have value in the defense of the American continent. But in this era where it is questionable whether even 4th generation will survive, a 737 or 767 would have no chance. The excess savings should be redistributed to leveraging TACAIR into a truly integrated attack force, in such a way that it is clearly capable of defeating all comers and to include present triple digit defenses. This is a deterrent effect which is credible, and if needed, deadly to the aggressors.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/01/31/scrap-awacs-jstars-plough-dough-into-f-35/#ixzz1CfD87ivK

[buglerbilly]

DATE:02/02/11

SOURCE:Flight International

USAF invites rivals to break Lockheed’s grip on F-22 upgrade work

By Stephen Trimble

The US Air Force could spend up to $16 billion over the next several years on further upgrades for the Lockheed Martin F-22.

It could also award some of the business to the manufacturer's competitors.

The dollar value was disclosed in a 26 January acquisition notice calling for bidders to compete for the follow-on Raptor enhancement, development and integration (FREDI) contract.

Lockheed was awarded the original multi-year REDI deal in 2004, but now the USAF is inviting its competitors to bid for the work too.


© Master Sgt Kevin Gruenwald/US Air Force

The last of 187 F-22s will be delivered to the USAF in early 2012, but the service plans to spend about $500 million annually for the next several years on planned upgrades. It is upgrading the F-22's radar and computer, adding more capable missiles and making the stealth aircraft easier to maintain.

At the same time, the USAF also plans to transition the F-22's sustainment programme "to a more organic support concept", the acquisition notice says.

Lockheed has been managing the F-22's maintenance system under a performance-based logistics (PBL) deal, which is designed to generate cost savings over time but locks the government into a long-term support deal.

But the USAF and other government agencies have decided to scale back the use of such PBL contracts. Instead, more maintenance work is being assigned in government depots, while other upgrade and sustainment tasks are split among several contractors.

[buglerbilly]

DATE:07/02/11

SOURCE:Flight International

PHOTO: First MC-130J rolls-out of Marietta factory

By Stephen Trimble

Lockheed Martin has rolled-out the first MC-130J ordered by the US Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) ahead of delivery later this year.

The unpainted aircraft rolled out of Lockheed's final assembly plant in Marietta, Georgia on 7 February bearing the C-130's distinctive orange coating for corrosion protection.

Lockheed is scheduled to deliver the first of 15 MC-130Js currently on order to AFSOC in the third quarter.


©Lockheed Martin

The AFSOC plans to buy as many as 37 MC-130Js to replace several aging airframes, including the MC-130E Combat Talon 1, MC-130P Combat Shadow and the AC-130H Spectre. AFSOC uses such aircraft to insert and support troops clandestinely, flying at low altitude at night.

Lockheed adapted its production line for the MC-130J and HC-130J programmes. Assembly workers now install a system to receive in-flight refuelling on the production line, rather than modifying the aircraft after it exits final assembly.

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Danger For Strategic Airlift in Central Asia

Posted by David A. Fulghum at 2/8/2011 9:19 AM CST

The chief of U.S. transportation command says he is worried daily that advanced, shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles will show up on the battlefield in Afghanistan or along the routes to fly there that could threaten strategic airlift.

In particular, classified State Dept. cables have voiced concerns about Chinese weapons and trainers having connections with the Taliban.

“Today [that threat] could change,” says Air Force Gen. Duncan McNabb. “I want us to stay ahead of it, with all of our international partners, [by being aware] these things might happen. We don’t talk a lot about it, we readjust. Even though it’s not a threat today, it could be tonight or tomorrow.”

Leaked State Department cables and comments by allied analysts contend that Chinese specialists were seen training Taliban fighters in the use of surface-to-air missiles. The most prominent missile mentioned was the QW-1 Vanguard, an all-aspect, 35-lb. launch tube and missile that is reverse-engineered from the U.S. Stinger and the Russian SA-16 Gimlet (9K38 Igla). The QW-1M incorporates technology from the even more advanced SA-18 Grouse (9K38 Igla).

“We have 900 sorties a day going sometimes into very dangerous places,” McNabb says. “We have a great relationship with the intel community so that if there is something [threatening] that comes up, we can immediately put that airplane on hold … until we sort that out.

“If we have to redirect airflow and decide not go into [an] area because there might be something out there, that’s what we do,” McNabb says “We see some intel that says the kinds of things [about Chinese advisors and advanced missiles],” he says. “And we also see some that doesn’t. If we hear something like that, we will ask the intel folks to go back and take a good hard look to see what it is, in fact.”

Other top concerns for McNabb include:

- About 90% of U.S. Transportation Command’s command and control capabilities are on unclassified networks.

- A total of 33,326 computer events were directed at Transcom.

- There were more than 1,100 attacks on supplies coming out of Pakistan by ground and those choke points in the lines of communications remain easy targets.

- Piracy on shipping is huge and going world wide with 219 pirate events recorded.

- Shots have been fired at 125 strategic airlift aircraft with 15 hits recorded. Strategic airlift aircraft are the primary targets.

- Cybernetworks are protected, but not secure and remained the most attacked of Combat Command assets.

McNabb also noted big savings from adjusting C-17 use in moving supplies to Afghanistan and predicted huge savings would be generated if a replacement tanker were available.

Because of the need to refuel C-17s during longer trips to Afghanistan, Transcom logisticians discovered it is 45% more efficient to use the new airlifters for only the last leg of the trip. Savings are pegged at $110 million to $116 million per month through a reduction in aerial refuelings, he says.

The savings from modifying in-flight refueling to make them more efficient could be further increased by introduction of a new tanker.

“We pass more fuel than we carry cargo,” McNabb says. Tankers constitute the majority of Transcom’s 900 daily sorties. But because most KC-135s cannot receive fuel in flight, they have to carry that fuel and weight back to their base. The average amount of fuel returned to base is 35,000-40,000 lb. per aircraft.

“They are carrying that all the time,” McNabb says. “We’re talking about 5 million lbs. a day. If you can leave that fuel in the fight, you only carry it one time. [Saving] 20 to 25 percent of the fuel bill is a lot.”

However, the new tanker designs would allow the remaining fuel to be transferred to other tankers remaining in refueling orbits. The savings in fuel are calculated in the millions of gallons.

[buglerbilly]

General gives stinging rebuke to contractors

By John T. Bennett - 02/09/11 08:07 PM ET

The top brass at the Pentagon is signaling in no uncertain terms that the defense industry needs to clean up its act and accept that the government can no longer throw away money on ill-conceived military projects.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz on Wednesday had some tough talk for defense contractors, saying firms must stop “blowing smoke” and over-promising about what they can deliver.

“Don’t blow smoke up my ass” about what a military platform can do and when it will be ready, Schwartz told a tense and silent ballroom filled with defense industry executives. “There’s no time for it. There’s no patience for it. OK?”

The comments were the latest example of Pentagon officials speaking bluntly about the future of the U.S. defense sector, which they say must change rapidly to accommodate the nation’s new fiscal reality.

“If industry makes a commitment, you will have to deliver,” Schwartz said. “There will be less tolerance … for not delivering.”

Officials say the future of the defense sector will be considerably different from the flush days after 9/11, when companies were handed what amounted to a blank check as the country fought two wars and took on terrorism.

Now, budgets are shrinking in Washington, and this time even the military isn’t immune. There is general agreement among Democrats and Republicans that defense cuts must be “on the table” as the country looks to pare back the spiraling deficit, though differences remain over how large those reductions should be.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has already announced that the service will reduce its spending by $78 billion over the next five years, and the service’s austerity drive is likely to accelerate in the years ahead.

Schwartz, who is rumored to be on the short list for the next Joint Chiefs chairman, said the budget crunch means the Pentagon will have “no patience” for exaggerated weapons-sales pitches.

“Cost-control will be an issue in everything we do,” from weapon programs to healthcare, the air chief said.

Contractors often focus their bids for Pentagon work on platforms and subsystems that cannot realistically be developed, tested and delivered on the proposed budget and schedule. The results typically are program delays and cost overruns that force the military to buy fewer models or cancel programs altogether.

A defense industry insider said it was notable that the blunt warnings about cost overruns came from Schwartz.

“Gen. Schwartz is not a harsh person, so the tough talk clearly is aimed at sending a message,” said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute. “The message is that the easy times are over for contractors, and companies that don’t perform will be punished.”

Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group said Schwartz is “understandably mindful of the last big defense downturn, in the early 1990s, [when] underestimating program costs was a frequently used way of getting ambitious new starts [into the budget] ‘under the wire’ as spending fell.”

In recent weeks, Pentagon leaders have pulled fewer punches about the changes that are needed to navigate choppy budgetary waters, employing frank rhetoric in an attempt to prepare industry, Congress and their own subordinates for life on a leaner budget.

The picture these officials are sketching is one of “hard times” that will require military services to rein in their combat hardware appetites and contractors to stop promising a dollar’s worth of technology on a dime-sized budget. And the message for both the services and industry is clear: The days of pursuing overpriced vehicles and outdated aircraft are over.

During the George W. Bush administration, Pentagon officials largely tolerated the services’ expensive pursuit of gold-plated weapons. At the time, there was an ever-deepening well of defense dollars to throw at technical problems and what has come to be known in defense circles as “exquisite” platforms.

But senior Pentagon brass say those days have come to an end, and stress that the industry needs to promise less and deliver more.

About 12 hours before Schwartz’s blistering message, Adm. Michael Mullen, the Joint Chiefs chairman, delivered a similar the same wake-up call to his own defense industry audience.

The next few years will bring “hard times in terms of resources,” Mullen said, and though the military is “built to run through walls,” smaller military budget levels will mean that “leaders will have to start deciding how to prioritize.”

Mullen said even special-operations forces — which perform the toughest missions in the most dangerous environments — would not be “immune” to the austerity drive.

Thompson and Aboulafia pointed out that the military shares the blame for weapons programs failures during the post-9/11 era. Aboulafia said the Pentagon was “along for the ride” during the spending spree.

Schwartz conceded Wednesday that the problems can’t be blamed solely on industry mistakes.

The Pentagon also on Wednesday sent signals about how the defense industry might look to consolidate to reflect leaner times.

Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter said U.S. defense officials will not oppose defense contractor mergers as military spending comes down unless such moves involve the six biggest firms.

During an interview with Bloomberg Television, Carter said DoD officials are “far from being discouraging to [merger and acquisition] activity — we’re actually quite welcome to that because we expect industry to make adjustments to new times.”

But the Pentagon will not stand aside and endorse every proposal, Carter said — DoD will not support any plan for consolidation among Boeing, General Dynamics, L3 Communications, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon.

“But with that exception, basically everything else is on the table,” he said.

Schwartz said smaller budgets mean the military will likely have to “scale back our ambitions” for new platforms. That means selecting technology that requires less development time and funding.

“Lower risk is the better strategy for this time,” said Schwartz. One example is a new bomber aircraft program the service soon will start — to keep costs down, the specs for that airframe will be less complex than initially planned.

But “I think it will make it easier for industry to deliver,” Schwartz said.

Schwartz said improving weapons program performance means both industry and the Pentagon will have to change.

“I’m ensuring the Air Force is doing its part,” he told The Hill. “Industry has to do better.”

[buglerbilly]

DATE:21/02/11

SOURCE:Flight International

AgustaWestland unveils AW139M for USAF, but top commander wants UH-60

By Stephen Trimble

Most companies brought brochures and models to the Air Warfare Symposium on 17-18 February, but AgustaWestland came with a fully armed helicopter.

With a US Air Force requirement to buy more than 90 new aircraft, the Italian manufacturer clearly hoped to send a message by unveiling the first AW139M inside the exhibit hall at the Air Force Association's second-largest public event.

"We'll be able to deliver to the air force's schedule, if not beat it," says Dan Hill, AgustaWestland North America's vice-president of strategy and federal business development.

But the AW139 and at least three other likely bidders may never get the chance to compete for the common vertical lift support platform (CVLSP) contract.


© AgustaWestland

Senior air force acquisition officials will be meeting soon to decide whether the CVLSP contract will be opened to competitive bids, or awarded on a sole-source basis to a version of the Sikorsky UH-60M Black Hawk.

Lt Gen James Kowalski, chief of Global Strike Command, strongly favours the sole-source option. Kowalski is not an acquisition authority, but his preference is important. The CVLSP will replace a fleet of Bell UH-1s protecting the air force's remote nuclear missile silos, which fall under his command.

"I can use an existing contract to purchase helicopters," Kowalski says. "It accelerates that process and maybe removes some things that, while nice to do within the acquisition formal structure, [they're not] when we're trying to do things efficiently and do things the smartest way."

The case for replacing the UH-1 is "urgent and compelling", Kowalski says, because that 1970s-era fleet has been deemed inadequate for the mission since 1996.

The air force had attempted to replace the CVLSP fleet several years ago. The programme was listed as an annex to a requirements document for the combat search and rescue (CSAR-X) helicopter.

A competition for the CSAR-X contract became a case study of breakdowns in the air force acquisition system, with two separate contract awards for the Boeing HH-47 Chinook overturned by protests and the bidding process terminated.

When the USAF relaunched the CSAR-X programme last year, service officials scaled down the requirement, allowing aircraft in the size class of the Black Hawk to compete. At the same time, Kowalski's command began pushing for a way to circumvent an acquisition process entirely, employing an obscure 1932 law called the Economy Act.

The law allows government agencies to award a sole-source contract to an existing supplier for a new requirement if there is an urgent need.

"I have had an urgent and compelling need since 1996 in terms of speed, range and payload," Kowalski says. "The UH-1 does not meet the need. How much longer are we willing to wait and take this risk?"

Sikorsky confirms that it has informed the air force that similar versions of the HH-60M Pave Hawk can perform both the CSAR-X and CVLSP roles.

In addition to the potential time savings, reducing the air force's helicopter fleet to a common platform can provide $3 billion in savings over the next 30 years, says Jim Naylor, Sikorsky's director of business development for aviation systems and a former HH-60 pilot.

AgustaWestland, however, argues that buying the AW139 would still be cheaper than buying only UH-60s.

"We're a third of the price to operate and at least half the price to acquire," Hill says, comparing the AW139M with the UH-60M.

The air force's acquisition system is undecided about circumventing a competition for CVLSP. The AW139 is not the only potential bid. The exhibit hall also included brochures for the Bell UH-1Y Super Huey and Boeing's HH-47. EADS North America officials have previously discussed a potential offer based on the Eurocopter AS332 Super Puma.

The final decision on whether to launch a competition will be made by David Van Buren, the air force's acquisition executive, and the Air Combat Command, Kowalski says. "There is still a meeting or two" left before a decision is reached, he adds.

[buglerbilly]

DATE:21/02/11

SOURCE:Flight International

USAF funding for T-38 replacement jumps tenfold in latest spending plan

By Stephen Trimble

US Air Force funding for a new advanced jet training system has jumped tenfold in the latest five-year spending plan, but top officials remain non-committal about the schedule and strategy for fielding a new aircraft.

The five-year spending plan unveiled by the air force on 14 February includes $306 million for the T-X training system, which will replace the Northrop T-38C Talon and its simulators.

That represents a huge jump from about $30 million inserted in the service's five-year plan last year, and is perhaps enough to field an off-the-shelf aircraft on schedule in fiscal year 2017.


© Northrop Grumman
US Air Force funding for a new advanced jet training system to replace the T-38 Talon (above) has jumped tenfold in the latest five-year spending plan

Despite higher funding levels, top USAF officials do not seem confident about the T-X programme's future. Surprisingly, secretary of the air force Michael Donley has listed T-X among unfunded programmes, a list that also includes the Air Force One replacement.

Gen Edward Rice, commander of the Air Education and Training Command (AETC), also declines to reaffirm the air force's original plan to start replacing the T-X in 2017. "We have not set an [initial operational capability]," he says.

The service is in the final stages of completing an analysis of alternatives, allowing an air force requirements oversight council meeting in March to set an acquisition strategy.

Options for replacing the T-38 include several off-the-shelf designs, including the Alenia Aermacchi M-346 branded for T-X as the T-100, the BAE Systems Hawk 128 and the Lockheed Martin/Korea Aerospace Industries T-50 Golden Eagle.

Northrop Grumman also can offer to extend the service life of the T-38 fleet, or propose a new aircraft. Meanwhile, Boeing has expressed interest in offering a purpose-built design for the T-X contract.

USAF officials are expected to brief the Defense Acquisition Board about the requirement in June.

[buglerbilly]

DATE:22/02/11

SOURCE:Flight International

F-35 slowdown shifts focus to F-16 service life

By Stephen Trimble

As concerns grow that the US Air Force is losing its air-power edge over potential rivals, the service's leadership has decided that hundreds of its oldest Lockheed Martin F-16s can remain in service for nearly 10 more years with minimal investment.

"With respect to the early blocks, our assessment is there is engineering analysis to support going from 8,000h of expected service life to over 10,000 with just enhanced depot maintenance procedures and maybe some very low-cost adjustments that we would make only on an airframe-by-airframe basis," secretary of the air force Michael Donley said during the Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Florida on 18 February. The F-16's life could be extended to around 10,800 flight hours, he adds.

Air force aircraft usually consume about 300 flight hours each year in peacetime. Increasing the expected service life of an airframe by 2,800 flight hours potentially extends the expected service by more than nine years.


© USAF

Keeping more of the USAF's 1,200-strong F-16 inventory out of retirement is necessary because of the recent slowdown of the Lockheed F-35 Lightning II, which is now scheduled to enter service in fiscal year 2016.

The air force wants to minimise how much it spends on legacy fighters at the same time that it ramps up spending on the replacement type.

"The strategic intent is to get F-35 production up as quickly as possible," Donley says.

Tweaking maintenance procedures will only work to extend the service life of Block 30-standard F-16s. The air force also is conducting long-term static tests to determine the service life extension requirements for the Block 40/50 fleet, but a decision to launch such a programme is not required until FY2015.

"For the later Block 40s and higher we're undertaking an engineering analysis to look more carefully at structural issues and also assess capability issues to evaluate what we might want to do in the future," Donley says.

In addition to evaluating the structure of the legacy F-16s, the Air Combat Command (ACC) also is considering capability upgrades.

"We realise that we will need to take F-16s and make some service life extensions to not only the airframe but maybe the avionics," says ACC chief Gen William Fraser.

Among the options under consideration is to replace the current radar with an active electronically scanned array (AESA), with the Northrop Grumman scalable agile beam radar and Raytheon advanced combat radar as two possibilities.

The USAF is grappling with concerns about its ability to remain the world's dominant air power as its fighter fleet shrinks and becomes more expensive with the introduction of more capable fifth-generation fighters, such as the F-35 and Lockheed F-22.

"We're not going to be able to outnumber people any more," says Gen Gary North, chief of Pacific Air Forces. "Our air force is very expensive. We've got to ensure that what we've got works all the time."

[buglerbilly]

Clinton confirms US F-16 base in Poland

04.03.2011 00:01


Radek Sikorski and Hilary Clinton in Washington; photo - PAP/EPA Michael reynolds

After talks in Washington on Thursday, Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski and US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton confirmed that an American air force base will be permanently stationed in Poland. Secretary Clinton also said Poland was an inspiration for people struggling for freedom today.

“As was announced by our two presidents in December, we plan to establish a new permanent US air detachment in Poland, build missile defences in Poland, and as agreed at the NATO summit, develop a contingency plan in the region." Hilary Clinton told journalists.

The base will be served by a rotating US squadron of F-16s.

The new European missile defence system will replace plans by the previous Bush administration to house an anti-ballistic missile unit in Poland with a radar system in the Czech Republic - a plan later abandoned by President Obama.

On ties between Washington and Warsaw, Hilary Clinton thanked Poland for its contribution to the fight against "extremism in Afghanistan", where the nation currently has 2,500 troops stationed.

Poland 'a model'

She also emphasised how Poland’s history of struggle against communism can be an inspiration for those currently striving for democracy in the Middle East and North Africa.

“Since the Gdansk shipyard and Solidarity, Poles know very well that no nation can be completely secure and prosperous if its people cannot have a voice in their own affairs. In just 20 years, Poland has established a transparent government with a vital, vibrant civil society. Poland serves as a model for others to learn," she said.

Radek Sikorski emphasised Poland and the United States’ united stand on the recent contested elections in Belarus and the crackdown that followed by President Lukashenko’s regime, with mass arrests and years-long prison sentences given out by courts in Minsk.

"We are on the side of ordinary citizens who want to control their lives and who are at last demanding their rights," Sikorski said of unrest in Belarus and the Middle East.

"The EU and the United States are responsible not only for EU’s southern but also for its eastern neighborhood, and this is demonstrated by Poland’s and the United States’ unified response to the rigged elections in Belarus," said Sikorski, who has been in the US since Sunday evening.

Minister Sikorski invited Secretary Clinton to visit Poland in October and reiterated an invitation to President Obama to attend a meeting of Central European leaders in Warsaw this May. (pg)

[buglerbilly]

Gates to Air Force: Get Used to Drones, Cargo Runs

By Spencer Ackerman March 4, 2011 | 2:05 pm



If any cadets at the Air Force Academy joined up in the hopes of dogfighting enemy jets or going on big bombing runs, Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ lecture on Friday probably came as a disappointment.

It’s not that the future doesn’t feature fighter jets and bombers — after all, Gates is a big proponent of the Joint Strike Fighter, and his new budget kickstarts the process of building the Air Force a brand new bomber. But he warned the Air Force to “shed the nostalgia” for “air-to-air combat and strategic bombing.”

That’s because the kinds of missions the Air Force performs in Iraq and Afghanistan are features, not bugs. Drone flights. Cargo lifts and drops. Medical evacuation. Airborne spying. Gates strongly praised a forthcoming “Air-Sea” joint warfighting doctrine that the Navy and Air Force are currently writing: “Think of naval forces in airfield defense, or stealth bombers augmented by Navy submarines.”

If he outlined a defense future reliant on air, sea and space capabilities last week at West Point, his speech today was a reminder that the last thing he’s after is a “return to the last century’s mindset,” Gates told cadets. It’s a challenge he extended to all the services, not just the Air Force.

“Stability and security missions, counterterrorism, train, assist and equip, persistent battlefield ISR, close air support, search and rescue, and the ever-critical transport missions are with us to stay — even without a repeat of Iraq and Afghanistan,” Gates said.

Gates also warned that the end of growth in the defense budget is going to compel the services to start acting really jointly — including buying stuff that’s useful to more than one service, as the Joint Strike Fighter program is. He singled out the drone planes that all the services buy independently, saying that buying a common “ground station” for controlling them makes sense in an era of tight cash. (Of course, it’s not like the $300 billion Joint Strike Fighter program is cheap.)

But Gates’ speech wasn’t a call to replace the fighter jets with an all-drone fleet. It was a call to balance out the Air Force’s more cherished missions with those it’s seen as a deviation from the norm — even as they’ve become the norm. Gates noted the huge increase in air operations in Afghanistan: more than 33,000 close air support sorties last year, a whopping 20 percent increase from 2009.

As much as he praised the drones, he recited decades’ worth of blown predictions of the obsolescence of manned aircraft, and warned against “the kind of techno-optimism about remote-control warfare that has muddled strategic thinking in the past.” Shortly after becoming defense secretary, Gates all but sparred with the Air Force to invest more heavily in drones. His comments today represent something of a valedictory peace offering — if one that comes after winning the drone fight, and capping the Air Force’s most cherished fighter, the F-22.

Those fights earned Gates some serious criticism from inside Air Force circles. Retired Maj. Gen. Charlie Dunlap (a friend of this blog) called him out last year for executing a vendetta against flyboys and presuming that the future of war looks too much like the ground-based Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. Ironically, Gates’ West Point speech earned him jabs from Army circles for shortchanging the role of armor and writing off ground warfare.

Gates blasted back at his critics — in Air Force, Army and Navy circles alike — for “mistaken interpretations” that he’s getting rid of core competencies. And he called himself a believer in “air supremacy,” not a “skeptic of air power.” To hear Gates tell it, the whole point of his “efficiencies initiative” was to save cash from obsolete programs and overhead so the services can expand their portfolios for the missions they’ll likely face in an unpredictable future.

Whether the Air Force Academy speech will satisfy his critics remains to be seen. Indeed, Gates sounded a note that they’re likely to seize upon. “Over the last four years, I have pushed the Air Force, and indeed all of the services, to institutionalize capabilities needed for asymmetric threats and unconventional warfare,” he said. “However, as my discussion of air supremacy today should confirm, this is not because these are the only kinds of missions I believe the military must be prepared for.”

To those skeptical of Gates, that sounds like a lack of prioritization among key defense tasks at a time when the defense budget won’t grow. But to his advocates, it’s an overdue corrective to a military bureaucracy that prepares only for the wars it wants to fight, not the ones it’s likely to confront. Whichever interpretation wins out is likely to hang over the tenure of Gates’ successor.

Photo: U.S. Air Force

[buglerbilly]

USAF Pulls Funding For F-15 IRST Upgrade

Mar 15, 2011

By Amy Butler



The U.S. Air Force has terminated funding for an infrared search and track (IRST) upgrade for its F-15C/D fleet as part of the service’s push last year to produce savings for the Pentagon’s fiscal 2012 budget.

Air Force officials say that the effort was designed to provide “the only USAF search and targeting capability in the infrared spectrum designed specifically for air-to-air, providing air-to-air attack capability in a radar-denied environment on the F-15C/D.” The system could be useful for air-to-air fighter engagements as well as cruise missile targeting and ballistic missile early warning. Lockheed Martin provides the sensor for the pod.

However, the service opted to remove research and development funding for the program in fiscal 2012 and beyond, according to Air Force officials. In the budget, they propose pulling $34.9 million in fiscal 2012 and a total of $345 million across the future year defense plan (including 2012).

Boeing, which is the prime contractor for the F-15, says that it continues to work with the Air Force to “explore options” for the program.

Air Force officials cite “technical challenges” with the F-15 version as their rationale. However, they also say that a version of the IRST designed for the Navy is “behind schedule.”

Navy officials, however, say that the effort is proceeding as planned. “The Navy’s F/A-18 IRST program is meeting program cost and schedule requirements,” says Marcia Hart-Wise, a spokeswoman for the service’s Super Hornet program.

The Navy version is ahead of that planned for the F-15 in its programmatic schedule. Because the Navy’s deliveries of F-35s come later than the Air Force’s and because its fleet of Super Hornets must remain operationally relevant longer than some Air Force legacy fighters, the service is spending money on its F/A-18E/Fs to keep them in the fight. One industry official notes that the use of an IRST is required because radars run the risk of being jammed at critical moments. The Navy is still buying Super Hornets and plans to buy an additional 41 aircraft owing to delays in the F-35 schedule.

The Super Hornet IRST system is mounted on the front of a 400-gal. centerline fuselage fuel tank.

Photo: USAF

[buglerbilly]

Congress Gridlock Could Mean USAF Reprogram

Mar 15, 2011

By Amy Butler



The U.S. Air Force will have to reduce its current procurement and research and development (R&D) accounts for fiscal 2011 by as much as $4 billion if Congress continues to fund at fiscal 2010 levels through continuing resolutions, according to senior service officials.

Congress has failed to address President Barack Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget request, which was sent to Capitol Hill in February 2010. This forces government departments and agencies to continue programs at fiscal 2010 levels, while forbidding “new start” programs or increased production levels and R&D funding.

USAF estimates up to $4 billion will need to be reprogrammed from “investment,” or procurement and R&D, for “must-pay” bills in fiscal 2011, says Jamie Morin, assistant Air Force secretary for financial management. These bills include an increase in military personnel pay that was not funded by Congress, and others including about $1.9 billion in adjustments to the price of fuel as well as adjustments for inflation. Also included are “urgent operational needs,” such as new sensors for ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, Morin says.

Reprogramming $4 billion in a single year is about four-five times the amount for a typical end-of-year adjustment, he says. “We are going to really have to rob Peter to pay Paul,” Morin says. “We are talking about some very tough capability choices.”

Maj. Gen. Alfred Flowers, deputy assistant Air Force secretary for the budget, says that “as time goes on, the more severe the consequences become.”

Already USAF has requested some relief — in the form of guidance or funding — to avoid major problems in the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (Jassm) program, the Global Positioning System III contract and the C-5 re-engining project, all with Lockheed Martin. Those have each been approved by Congress, Flowers says.

However, there are outstanding issues on short funding or unclear guidance for durability testing on the F-16 fighter, which has been a new start planned for fiscal 2011. This testing is needed to help determine what fixes may be needed for the fleet depending on how much longer the F-16 must remain in service owing to delays in F-35 deliveries.

Also unaddressed is funding for the F-15 upgrade to include an active, electronically scanned array radar, which will provide improved target recognition and new communications capabilities. A delay in fielding the radars could prompt some F-15s to be grounded as soon as fiscal 2014, Morin says.

Photo: USAF

[buglerbilly]

Test and Evaluation Team Helps Lead Effort in KC-135 Defense System Possibilities

(Source: US Air Force; issued March 15, 2011)

SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, Ill. --- In a combined effort between Air Mobility Command, Air National Guard, the KC-135 Stratotanker System Program Office, Northrop-Grumman officials and other agencies, for the first time a KC-135 Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures-based pod defensive system is becoming a reality.

The pod, called the Guardian System by maker Northrop-Grumman, is a laser-based countermeasures system being designed to detect, provide warning of and employ countermeasures against infrared-guided surface-to-air missiles.

Performed as a risk-reduction engineering study, the installation on the KC-135 consisted of a typical distributed LAIRCM system where all the system components were installed throughout the aircraft -- permanently, according to officials from AMC's Test and Evaluation Division.

"Distributed systems commonly have high cost and weight penalties associated with them, and on a mission as critical as air refueling, every drop of fuel over the fight counts," said Lt. Col. Randall Sealy, the tanker test manager and chief of AMC Aircraft Test Management Branch.

With that in mind, the KC-135 LAIRCM team made the LAIRCM system portable, modular and transferable.

"The tanker could then maximize capabilities while minimizing risk," Colonel Sealy said. "In today's environment, flexibility really is the key to airpower."

The operational concept for pod operation is for a modified KC-135 to have an 'A kit', Colonel Sealy said. "This kit includes an adapter plate, associated wiring and operator controls. Based on mission requirements, the pod can then be attached as required. The pod is intended to provide adequate infrared countermeasures for departure, descent and approach for the KC-135."

Once it's on the plane, the Guardian System LAIRCM pod "is an encased system of sensors software and a laser tracker that can identify infrared ground-based missile threats, sense them, track them and then defeat them using a laser to spoof the missile off course," according to 95th Air Base Wing officials at Edwards AFB, Calif., where some of the LAIRCM testing has been done.

Raymond Berhalter, the program manager at the KC-135 System Program Office at Tinker AFB, Okla., said the current testing of the KC-135 LAIRCM "was always designed to be a suitability evaluation."

"If this does become a true and active program, there's a significant amount of testing and documentation that needs to be done," Mr. Berhalter said. "Right now, this is a demonstration of a previously developed system."

Several tests on the "suitability" of the LAIRCM pod aboard the KC-135, to include an operational utility evaluation, have been completed already, Colonel Sealy said. In addition to officials from the Air National Guard-Air Force Reserve Command Test Center, the 412th Test Wing at Edwards AFB and the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center KC-135 System Program Office performed an electromagnetic interference and electromagnetic compatibility test on the pod, as well as a flight demonstration for safety of flight and handling characteristics.

Members of the 46th Training Wing at Eglin AFB, Fla., using operational aircrews and a KC-135 from the Kansas Air National Guard's 190th Air Refueling Wing at Forbes Field in Topeka, conducted open-air range testing of the pod's effectiveness with a ground-based Mallina missile plume simulator to measure the pod's response.

James Shilling, the LAIRCM program manager from Northrop-Grumman of Chicago, which developed the system, said the pod did very well in all its tests.

"We were very pleased with the data we've received," Mr. Shilling said. "Overall, everything we've seen thus far has been very positive. We've accomplished the operational testing, design testing, and soon we are going to fly into theater on an aeromedical evacuation mission using the pod.

"We've received very positive feedback from the flight crews -- there were no noticeable handling characteristics that were detrimental to flight," Mr. Shilling added. "The receiver pilots saw no effects that would prevent them from refueling. We flew two (receiver) aircraft out of Edwards (AFB) -- they reported no problems. At the Eglin (AFB) test range...the system performed as it was designed and we were again, very pleased."

The Guardian System LAIRCM pod was originally developed with the help of the Department of Homeland Security, Mr. Shilling said.

"The government gets to reap the benefit from that program because an immense amount of work has already been done," he said. "We know that LAIRCM works, and we know it works in a pod. We accumulated nearly 24,000 operating hours and almost 4,800 sorties while flying in the DHS program, so we know the system works. That's what (the Air Force) gets to take advantage of -- you get all that data at no cost to you."

In addition to cost savings from design and development work already done by Northrop-Grumman and the DHS, Mr. Shilling said the other advantage of the Guardian System is its "portability." The pod version of LAIRCM could provide adequate protection for the KC-135, or other aircraft at a substantially lower cost over a typical distributed version.

"We can literally roll it under the airplane and install it in under 10 minutes," Mr. Shilling said. "And it doesn't care which airplane it goes on. So, the KC-135 can be flying its mission in all the countries it needs to operate, but then if you have another modified airplane going into harm's way, then all we have to do is remove it from the (KC)-135 and place it on the other aircraft to protect it."

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

DATE:16/03/11

SOURCE:Flight International

USAF overrules top general on competition for new helicopter

By Stephen Trimble

HH-60M is FAR too small and short-ranged even with external tanks (and we all know the problems they caused under combat stress conditions).............only EH/US-101 and/or Chinook come near to properly meeting the requirements for CSAR-X. The CVLSP requirement is far less and could be met by an AW-139 OR S-92 or Super Puma/Cougar. Combining the two is a worthless exercise apart from increasing the profit for the winning bidder IF a single model selection is made........you likely will end up with a helo too capable for CVLSP and insufficient for the CSAR-X hot-andhigh needs that are so short now...

The US Air Force's acquisition leaders are likely to consider three or four different helicopters for a new contract, overruling a senior commander who strongly pushed for a sole-source contract for a new version of the Sikorsky UH-60.

"I expect we will go towards a competitive strategy," Lt Gen Mark Shackelford, military deputy to the assistant secretary of the air force for acquisition, told a House Armed Services Committee hearing on 15 March.

A competition would allow at least "three or four vendors" that meet the air force's requirement to submit proposals for the common vertical lift support programme (CVLSP).


© Staff Sgt Aaron Allmon/USAF
Sikorsky has offered to meet both the CSAR-X and CVLSP fleet requirements with a single helicopter - the HH-60M.

The CVLSP requirement has been listed for 93 aircraft, but air force officials recently suggested the number could eventually be 205. The latter number appears to include a related requirement for 112 combat search and rescue helicopters (CSAR-X).

Sikorsky has offered to meet both the CSAR-X and CVLSP fleet requirements with a single helicopter - the HH-60M.

That strategy has been embraced by Lt Gen Jim Kowalski, chief of Global Strike Command, which is responsible for operating the CVLSP fleet. Kowalski said last month that awarding a sole-source deal would accelerate the acquisition process.

For Kowalski, speed of acquisition is one of the key requirements for the CVLSP procurement. The Bell Helicopter UH-1s currently flying the missions, which involve patrolling remote missile fields and ferrying VIPs in Washington DC, have been inadequate for their mission since 1996, he says.

Kowalski last month said the acquisition strategy for CVLSP would be decided during a meeting in March with David Van Buren, the air force's assistant secretary of acquisition, and Shackelford's boss.

It is not clear if the meeting has taken place, but Shackelford's statement indicates the decision on the CVLSP acquisition strategy has already been made.

Although Shackelford says there are three or four vendors that meet the USAF's requirement, at least five companies have expressed interest in the CVLSP programme.

Beyond Sikorsky, the most outspoken advocate for a competition has been AgustaWestland, which has rigged up an AW139M to compete for the contract.

Bell and Boeing have also distributed marketing materials showing their respective UH-1Y Super Huey and HH-47 Chinook products as alternatives for CVLSP, while EADS North America officials have proposed Eurocopter's Super Puma.

The selected helicopter will have to perform a unique mission. As part of its requirement to secure remote missile fields, the aircraft must take off with a fully loaded nine-person response team and four crew members.

[buglerbilly]

CVLSP Buy Competitive, Or Not?

By Colin Clark Thursday, March 17th, 2011 11:41 am



UPDATED: Air Force Clarifies On Requirements

Air Force Secretary Mike Donley told the Senate Armed Services Committee today that he is “absolutely sure competition will be involved” in the the purchase of the Common Vertical Lift Support Platform.

These helos will execute two missions: one is to move lawmakers from Washington in an emergency; the other is to move security forces around the nation’s ICBM fields.

Donley’s comments went even further than those of Air Force Lt Gen. Mark Shackleford before the House Armed Services Committee.Donley said the service’s acquisition strategy on this helicopter should be out by the end of the month.

But, so far at least, the Air Force’s own budget does not appear to support their assertions about competition.

The Air Force budget includes money only for what appears to be two production aircraft but there is not one shiny dime in the budget –as far as several budget experts can tell — to modify an existing aircraft, let alone build a new one. [UPDATE: The budget DOES contain a tiny pot of development money:

5.365M in fiscal 2012 for “missionization of an in-production, non-developmental, Government Off-The-Shelf or Commercial Off-The-Shelf (GOTS/COTS) aircraft including flight testing, Live Fire Test and Evaluation, and airworthiness certification. Funding also provides for development or conversion of COTS training systems, technical data, support equipment, and logistics elements as required for use in an operational environment.”]
As one observer put it: “Since you’re buying off the shelf– without even a dollar to add a seat belt of test a winch, doesn’t that limit the possible competitors?”

In the meantime, some of the companies eager to pursue the contract are struggling to ascertain the service’s real intentions. If you look at the budget the Air Force would seem to be interested only in buying existing aircraft since it contains $52.8 million in production funds . And the service has talked of using the Economy Act to allow it to buy the helo without resorting to a competition. Lt. Gen. Jim Kowalski, head of Air Force Global Strike Command, told reporters in early February he wanted to avoid competition and buy an existing bird — probably the Blackhawk — to meet an urgent and compelling need for helos able to fly security forces to the missile silos in event of emergency or a security breach.

A second observer said he believes the service is split, with acquisition officials favoring a competition and operators favoring an existing aircraft. This observer believes that the requirements in the RFI do not match the warfighters requirements, making this even more confusing. reportedly, the acquisition officials reduced the requirements for the RFI which may have been an attempt to encourage at least the appearance of competition.

But that is “not true,” said Air Force spokesman Lt. Col. Jack Miller. “The last helo RFI did include the latest Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) validated requirements.”

Appropriators and authorizers are beginning to focus on this issue so look for increased congressional action soon.

Among the possible competitors would be: the AgustaWestland AW139M; the Bell UH-1Y, the EADS North America AS332 Super Puma and the Sikorsky UH-60M.

Donley’s comments would appear to put this debate to rest for now. But the service will still have to explain the apparent disconnect between its budget and its intentions.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/03/17/cvlsp-buy-competitive-or-not/#ixzz1GuGvJreJ

[Deks]

The Super Hornet IRST system is mounted on the front of a 400-gal. centerline fuselage fuel tank.

Didn't boeing offer a fuselage mounted system to the Indians for MMCRA ?

[ADMk2]

Didn't boeing offer a fuselage mounted system to the Indians for MMCRA ?



They did, but USN had previously ordered a dveloped version of the AN/AAS-42 long wave IRST (previously carried on F-14D and F-15E "Tiger eyes" sensors) to be installed on a centreline hardpoint carried fuel tank for it's Super Hornets.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/InfraredSearchTrack/index.html



The new fuselage mounted IRST is one of the development options should any wish to acquire the Super Hornet and get a bit of local workshare... CFT's, enhanced engines,a spherical MAWS system and a conformal weapons pod ( the prototype isn't all that conformal...)

[buglerbilly]

HC-130J Completes Developmental Testing

MARIETTA, Ga., March 22nd, 2011 --


HC-130J Completes Developmental Testing



The new HC-130J personnel recovery aircraft, developed for the United States Air Force Air Combat Command, has completed developmental testing. The final test point was air-to-air refueling and was achieved on March 14. This was the first refueling of an HC-130J, and the first ever boom refueling of a C-130 where the aircraft’s refueling receiver was installed during aircraft production. This test point also applies to the MC-130J Combat Shadow II aircraft in production for Air Force Special Operations Command. Rollout of the first MC-130J will be celebrated at the Lockheed Martin facility in Marietta, Ga. on March 29. The first HC-130Js and MC-130Js will start deliveries in August with Initial Operational Capability for both scheduled for 2012.

[buglerbilly]

Limitations Keep F-22 from Use In Libya Ops (excerptt)

(Source: Air Force Times; published March 22, 2011)


The F-22 was kept out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and won’t be deployed in Libya, either, because of inherent major operational shortcomings. (USAF photo)

WASHINGTON --- One aircraft conspicuous by its absence over the skies of Libya is the Air Force’s vaunted F-22 Raptor air dominance fighter. The Lockheed Martin-built jet was likely benched due to its inability to communicate with other coalition aircraft and its limited ability to hit ground targets, analysts said.

“The designers of the F-22 had a dilemma, which is whether to have the connectivity that would allow versatility or to have the radio silence that would facilitate stealthiness. What they opted for was a limited set of tactical data links,” said Loren Thompson, an analyst and chief operating office at the Lexington Institute, Arlington Va.

The F-22 can only connect with other F-22s via an intraflight data link, and can only receive, but not transmit, over the standard Link-16 data link found on most allied aircraft.

Radio emissions from various data links could potentially give away the aircraft’s position, Thompson said.

As such, while the Raptor is the stealthiest operational aircraft in the world, it lacks much of the connectivity found on other warplanes, he said.

The aircraft also lacks a significant air-to-surface punch. Currently, the F-22 can only use two 1,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions, which are GPS-guided bombs, against fixed targets. (end of excerpt)

Click here for the full article, on the Air Force Times website.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/03/defense-f22-raptor-absent-from-libya-ops-032211/

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

F-22s Won’t Get F-35 Datalinks,Yet

By John Reed Thursday, March 31st, 2011 1:58 pm



Air Force leaders shed more light on the communications issues facing the F-22 Raptor today, telling lawmakers that the plane will not be receiving the same datalink being developed for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The service had been looking at integrating the Multifunction Advanced Datalink onto the F-22, F-35 and B-2 Spirit bombers in an effort to give all stealth jets a secure way of communicating.

MADL however, is not “mature” enough to install on the Raptor without incurring too much risk, said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz.

“We should let the F-35 development effort mature before tacking it onto the F-22, this was a cost and a risk calculation on our part,” the four-star told the House Appropriations defense subcommittee today.

He went on to say that the jet “can communicate” with older fighters using Link-16 via something called BACN, a version of which can translate info from the Raptor’s Intra-flight Data Link to Link-16 format; allowing it to communicate with older fighters. BACN has been critical in aiding communications in the skies over Afghanistan where it’s been mounted on everything from a Block 20 RQ-4 Global Hawk to business jets. (Here’s a more detailed explanation of these so-called communications gateways.)

However, when asked if the version of BACN that allows the Raptors to actually talk to other jets has been fielded, Schwartz couldn’t say.

So yes, in theory, the Air Force has a tool that can allow the F-22 to communicate with Link-16 equipped jets. In reality, it may not be fully fielded yet in sufficient numbers. The way Schwartz described it, anytime the F-22 would deploy with other fighters, it would need a RQ-4 Global Hawk drone equipped with BACN to be loitering nearby.

While the Air Force insists the jet wasn’t used in Libya because it is based too far from the fight, some speculate that its inability to communicate with other fighters is the real reason it was left out of Operation Odyssey Dawn.

So, given the fact that the F-22 is based far from Libya combined with the fact it would take the deployment of a Global Hawk equipped with a gateway, that may or may not be fielded, to allow it to talk to other jets, it seems like the communications issue may have played a role in the service’s decision to exclude it from Libyan ops. It would just be too much effort to quickly deploy the Raptor, a jet which wouldn’t have a heck of a lot of use in Libya, with its ancient air defenses, to begin with.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/03/31/f-22s-wont-get-f-35-datalinksyet/#ixzz1IE1d2tTs

[buglerbilly]

Air Force Officials Present Budget to Appropriations Committees

(Source: U.S Air Force; issued March 31, 2011)

WASHINGTON --- Air Force leaders discussed the service's fiscal 2012 budget request and their concerns about operating under a continuing resolution with members of the Senate and House Appropriations Committees during hearings here March 30 and 31.

In the March 30 hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Defense, Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley said a decision to extend the continuing resolution at fiscal 2010 budget levels through the remainder of this year would have a significant effect on the Air Force.

"Deeper reductions to our modernization programs would be required to fund over $4 billion in must-pay bills for urgent operational needs, like those in Afghanistan and Iraq, and for military health care and the military pay raise of 1.4 percent, which Congress authorized but which has not yet been funded," the secretary said.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz echoed the secretary's concern.

"Without a 2011 appropriations bill, we will have to further reduce flying hours, cancel training and exercise opportunities, delay or cancel weapons systems sustainment and depot maintenance activities, and disrupt a multitude of other day-to-day activities," General Schwartz said.

The Air Force's fiscal 2012 baseline budget request of $150 billion, and $16 billion in overseas contingency operations supplemental appropriations, represents a careful balance of resources among Air Force core functions necessary to implement the president's national security strategy while recognizing the need for fiscal restraint, Secretary Donley said.

"We continue to recognize the requirement for fiscal restraint and are committed to remaining good stewards of every taxpayer dollar, improving management and oversight at every opportunity," the secretary said.

The fiscal 2012 budget request incorporates over $33 billion in efficiencies across the future-years defense plan, which will be shifted to higher-priority combat capability by reducing overhead costs, improving business practices and eliminating excess troubled or lower-priority programs, Secretary Donley said.

General Schwartz said the fiscal 2012 budget request supports Airmen and their continuing efforts to structure the force for maximum versatility, citing current relief efforts in Japan as one such example.

"Members of the 33rd Rescue Squadron from Kadena Air Base in Okinawa continue to partner with their Japanese Self Defense Force counterparts to conduct search-and-rescue operations," the general said, adding that special operations Airmen, also from Kadena, worked to open a couple of hard-hit airfields at Sendai and Matsushima.

Concurrent to humanitarian missions in Japan, the Air Force continues to provide valuable support to coalition efforts in North Africa, General Schwartz said.

"F-15Es and F-16CJs, along with a multitude of Airborne Warning and Control Systems, tankers and other support aircraft, joined coalition aircraft from Britain, France and others to help gain control of the airspace, establish a no-fly zone over Libyan opposition forces and protect Libyan citizens from any further harm from Moammar Gadhafi's regime," General Schwartz said.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Did Politics Keep the F-22 Out of Libya?

By John Reed Monday, April 4th, 2011 3:48 pm



Former Air Force ISR chief, Lt. Gen. David Deptula, just isn’t buying the explanation given by Air Force leaders last week that distance is what kept the F-22 Raptor out of Operation Odyssey Dawn.

Instead, political reasons likely kept the most advanced jet on Earth out of the fight, according to Deptula, an early advocate of using the jet to enforce the no-fly zone in Libya. Basically, the F-22’s stealth would have negated much of the official need for coalition help since the jet is almost completely immune to Libya’s ancient air defenses, argues the Deptula, who retired last October.


“Because of the high degree of stealth of the F-22, its supercruise and ISR capabilities, it would not have required the destruction of the Libyan enemy air defense system to operate inside Libyan airspace,” writes Deptula in an email to DoDBuzz. This is especially true “given the make-up of the current Libyan air defenses (predominantly made up of SA-2, 3, 5, and 6s). Accordingly, F-22s would be free to either engage any Libyan aircraft that took-off, or they could destroy LAF aircraft and/or helicopters on the ground at will.”

Thus, the United States could have knocked out Gadhafi’s air force without touching his air defense network, according to Deptula. This means, the U.S. could have just gone it solo and used the jets to take out Libya’s air force without any international help:


The desired effect of a no fly zone (NFZ) is to keep adversary aircraft from flying–using F-22s that could have been achieved without having to destroy enemy air defenses. That would have obviated the need for any other coalition partner from participating and therefore was not a desirable option politically–ergo a primary rationale for not using F-22s to impose a NFZ in Libya. Using legacy, non-stealth aircraft, required the suppression/destruction of the Libyan integrated air defense system to proceed with the imposition of a NFZ, but it also allowed for the participation of the multiple nations that made up the coalition.

So by not using the F-22s, the U.S. had an excuse to put together a coalition.

He also acknowledges that threat conditions in the country may not have justified the use of the Raptor, leading to another reason to keep the F-22s at home; basically, the jets were overkill for the mission.

Keep in mind the former fighter pilot knows a thing or two about both the F-22 (he’s long been an advocate of actually using the jets instead of having them simply fly air show routines) and how to take over an enemy’s airspace; he was the joint task force commander for no-fly zone operations over northern Iraq in 1998 and 1999 and served as the principal attack planner for the air component of Operation Desert Storm in 1991.

Deptula also swats down speculation that the Raptor’s inability to use its datalinks to communicate with other jets was a driver behind leaving them behind.

“F-22s can communicate securely just fine with other aircraft,” writes Deptula in response to the notion that the plane’s. “You may be talking about data links, but if you applied that standard (multi-connectivity of all aircraft tied together by common data link) then many of the aircraft flying in the coalition would fail in that ability, also.”

“The bottom line is that the F-22 not deploying to the Libyan conflict was a political decision-not one having anything to do with capability,” adds Deptula.

While the F-22 is “optimized” for air-to-air combat as Air Force Secretary Michael Donley pointed out last week, they can carry two 1,000 pound JDAMs for air-to-ground missions. No, this isn’t nearly as good as a bomber or strike fighters like the F-15E but it still packs a punch and could have hit ground targets.

Still, other jets such as the Strike Eagle and Marine Corps AV-8B Harrier carry a lot more of the air-to-ground munitions that have been used to chase down Gadhafi’s ground forces. Keeping them in the air unmolested means taking out Libyan air defenses, not just Libyan fighters. Some aviation experts also argue that the F-22s would require nearly as many “enablers” (support aircraft) as legacy fighters to carry out the Libyan mission.

I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between all the arguments laid out recently; the potentially overqualified Raptors would have cost a lot to deploy, might not be as efficient at hitting Gadhafi’s ground targets and would have hurt the justification for building an international coalition.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/04/04/did-politics-keep-the-f-22-out-of-libya/#ixzz1Ianhtd9r

[ADMk2]

A couple of extra 1000lbs JDAM's in the mix would have made a HUGE difference wouldn't it? Neither the B-2's nor F-15E's were "maxed out" in load carrying capability, so what difference would an F-22A had made? The US was clearly attempting to minimise the cost and extent of it's involvement in this operation, so apart from bombers and EW/Intell assets nothing that wasn't already in Europe or deployable from assets in the MEA (EA-18G Growlers) would be used.

Political. Bah. How about common sense? I know it's a very short commodity, but there was simply no reason to use an F-22A in Libya. It's designed to fight and win air battles and to strike against high end IADS. Neither were present in Libya.

[Gubler, A.]

Political. Bah. How about common sense? I know it's a very short commodity, but there was simply no reason to use an F-22A in Libya. It's designed to fight and win air battles and to strike against high end IADS. Neither were present in Libya.

Nah it must be a conspiracy. It doesn't matter that they weren't needed, it doesn't matter that no other assets were re-deployed from CONUS to Europe, it doesn't matter that the F-22A lacks an optical targeting system so as to meet rules of engagement, its all political. Because if the F-22 dropped a couple of bombs on Gaddafi then that would mean that the F-35 would have to be cancelled F-22 production restored to infinity, the FB-22 developed and F-22 cleared for export to all and sundry as well as the Navy... Now where have we heard this stupid stuff before?

[McDethWivFries]

So you mean to say that fleets of F-22's supported by 'cranked arrow' FB-22s and KC-747s lead by Uberpigs'o'Death (reenginged with F-14 engines and glass cockpits) aren't going to be leading air wars in the future?!??

[buglerbilly]

You guys! :rofl :rofl :rofl

[buglerbilly]

USAF Will Likely Pick Off-The-Shelf Trainer

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 5 Apr 2011 15:07

The U.S. Air Force will likely pick an aircraft that is already in production for its nascent T-X advanced jet-trainer program to replace its geriatric fleet of the T-38 Talon trainers, the service's top civilian leader told reporters.

"In T-X, we are looking for probably a commercial derivative, something that's [already] being produced elsewhere," Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said April 5 at a Defense Writers Group breakfast.

Analysts said that the revelation comes as no surprise because the service simply does not have the research and development funds to design a clean-sheet aircraft design.

"I don't think anyone had the illusion they had the [research and development] cash," said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at the Teal Group, Fairfax, Va.

However, Aboulafia said, the Air Force might run into trouble with buying an off-the-shelf airframe if it cannot keep its requirements in check.

"The real danger is, you start with a simple off-the-shelf airplane and then start adding all sorts of bells and whistles, and you can get into real trouble especially in these times of limited budgets," he said.

Donley said one approach that might remedy the problem of ever-expanding requirements is to limit engineering change authority to the top levels of Air Force leadership, which is the how the service has said it plans to manage its KC-46A tanker program.

However, there are drawbacks to that approach, Aboulafia said.

"With a tanker, that's close to a commodity product, but with a tanker they might have more exacting specifications. But that's the approach to take," he said.

[buglerbilly]

JSF Radar Absorbent Coatings Applied to Raptor

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 6 Apr 2011 20:29

The newest F-22 stealth fighters produced for the U.S. Air Force at Lockheed Martin's Marietta, Ga., factory have improved radar absorbent coatings derived from the company's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

"Some of the [low observables] coatings system and gap-fillers that the F-35 had an advantage on, we have incorporated into the Raptor," said Jeff Babione, vice president and general manager of the F-22 program for Lockheed Martin.

The new materials do not alter the F-22's radar cross-section, but do improve on the durability of those coatings. The benefit for the Air Force is a reduced maintenance burden, Babione said.

"[The F-35 program] had some more robust materials that were more durable and we were able to pull those back on to the F-22," he said. "So our system is better, and the life-cycle cost of the F-22 is reduced."

Dan Goure, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, Arlington, Va., agreed that retrofitting the F-22 with the F-35's coatings will save the Air Force a significant amount of time and money when it comes to maintenance.

"It's not going to transform the airplane, but what it's going to really do is make it much cheaper to operate the F-22 fleet, which is terribly important given its small size," he said.

Despite Lockheed Martin's statement that the F-35-derived coatings would not alter the F-22's radar cross-section, Goure said he suspects the new materials are likely to improve upon the Raptor's already impressive signature.

"I would be very surprised if this wasn't an improvement in stealth characteristics," he said.

Lockheed Martin only had to make minor tweaks to the F-35's radar absorbent materials in order to adapt the technology to the F-22. Though the radar cross-section requirements for the Raptor and the F-35 are slightly different, fundamentally the physics and chemistry of the coatings are the same, Babione said.

For installation into the Raptor, the F-35 coatings likely needed to be modified to deal with the high supersonic cruise-speeds and extreme altitudes at which the F-22 routinely operates, Goure said.

"It's operating at a higher altitude typically and [at] faster speeds, and that would put different stresses on the material," he said.

The Raptor can cruise at speeds around Mach 1.8 above 50 000 feet without afterburners.

At the moment, the latest Lot 9 production F-22s only have some of the new stealth coatings installed. Other improved stealth materials "are still in final qualification testing and will enter the field next year," he said.

Once testing is complete, plans are in place to retrofit the entire F-22 fleet with the coatings.

[buglerbilly]

USAF: Some Future Programs May Be 'Just Good Enough'

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 12 Apr 2011 15:55

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - The U.S. Air Force Space Command chief asked industry for ideas as DoD's budget shrinks and its demand for services rises in coming years.

"I need your ideas," Gen. William Shelton told an audience at the National Space Symposium here April 12. "I'm challenging every audience I speak to, to help me think about this. I'm absolutely convinced that there are better ways to the missions we are charged with doing and we can find those better ways and fit them within the available budget."

Shelton said some Air Force capabilities remain absolutely critical to national security. But as budgets flatten or decline and demand rises, those capabilities will likely have to be delivered through existing technologies, not ones that require expensive development.

"It will be with mature technologies and it may be with just-good-enough capability rather than pushing the state of the art," he said.

The most important factor is "mission assurance," which means that those required space capabilities need to be available consistently without fail.

[buglerbilly]

Lockheed Martin Delivers Second Production C-5M Super Galaxy to U.S. Air Force


The 2nd production C-5M departs the airfield at Dobbins Air Reserve Base, Marietta, GA. (Photo: Lockheed Martin)

19:12 GMT, April 12, 2011 MARIETTA, Ga. | Lockheed Martin completed delivery of the second production C-5M Super Galaxy at a ceremony here Monday with a crew from Dover Air Force Base, Del.

The fifth C-5M overall to be delivered to the Air Force, this aircraft will undergo internal paint restoration at Stewart Air National Guard Base, N.Y., before traveling to its home base at Dover.

Maj. Gen. James T. Rubeor, commander of the 22nd Air Force, Air Force Reserve, said in a statement: "Though it's still early, the operational accomplishments of the C-5M in such a short amount of time are extraordinary. Obviously, this is a tremendous investment for the Air Force. With this fifth Super Galaxy, we're adding a new level of capability to the equation for determining how strategic airlift is used in both present and future contingency operations."

Lockheed Martin is on contract to modernize a total of 52 C-5s, consisting of 49 B-, two C- and one A-model aircraft through the Reliability Enhancement and Re-Engining Program (RERP). The program incorporates more than 70 changes and upgrades, including newer, quieter General Electric engines making the C-5M more reliable and 10 percent more fuel efficient than legacy C-5s. Three test aircraft were delivered and flown before the modernization program entered full production.

The Super Galaxy is America's premier global direct delivery weapon system and the only strategic airlifter capable of linking the homeland directly to the warfighter in all theaters of combat without refueling. The C-5M recently delivered 3,300 tons of helicopters to Afghanistan with a mission capable rate of nearly 90 percent.

The C-5M's demonstrated improvements in performance and efficiency validate the value to the taxpayer of modernizing proven and viable aircraft. The C-5 can carry twice the cargo of other strategic airlift systems and is the only strategic airlifter capable of carrying 100 percent of certified air-transportable cargo.

[buglerbilly]

The twilight of the Bone

By Philip Ewing Friday, April 15th, 2011 10:23 am



Secretary Gates likes to say DoD has a “perfect record” in predicting the conflicts in which it becomes engaged — a perfect record of failure. Consider the Air Force’s B-1B Lancer, a supersonic, swing-wing bomber built to attack a country that no longer exists with nuclear weapons it’s no longer permitted to carry. Gates also likes to say that DoD needs to buy equipment it can use for many different types of missions, not just boutique weapons for highly specialized jobs. Happily for him, the Bone is a case in point — the Air Force has given it a second life as a weapon against insurgents in Afghanistan, as David Wood ably reported here.

But starting with next year’s budget, the Air Force plans to slowly begin slimming down its fleet of B-1s, cutting six across the board for a total of 60 airplanes in service. The Air Force expects this decision to save it about $357 million over the next five years, Rep. Rep. Randy Neugebauer told the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday. Neugebauer — whose district includes Dyess AFB, home of the 7th Bomb Wing — says the blue-suiters are being penny-wise and pound foolish. The case he made to the committee exemplifies the political pickle that all lawmakers, and especially spending-averse Republicans, are in as they both try to cut back on expenditures and simultaneously protect their districts back home.

“Mr. Chairman, I know that in this new, and frankly refreshing, climate of tightening our belts around here, no program is off limits,” Neugebauer said. “There are no sacred cows and programs across the board, defense and non-defense, have to justify their funding levels. I believe keeping the B-1 fully funded and maintaining the current fleet size makes the case for itself.”

He went on: “As of June 2010, the B-1 has flown more than 4,500 missions over the past 5 years. During this time, the 76 B-52s and 20 B-2s sat on the bench. Additionally, the B-1 is the least expensive bomber in the fleet. As you can see in the exhibit attached to my testimony, the B-52 is 23 percent more expensive to fly per Cost Per Flying Hour (CPFH). The B-2 is 179 percent more expensive. The attached exhibit also documents the astounding cost differentials when it comes to the cost of Period Depot Maintenance. In the business community we look for “good value” for our investment. In the military, they call is “bang for the buck.”

Neugebauer didn’t say so explicitly, but there was a clear message between the lines: To keep the B-1s flying, it might be worth cutting back the rest of the bomber fleet. What do you think — should the Air Force mothball some of its B-52s, or even B-2s, to free up cash for the Bone?

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/04/15/the-twilight-of-the-bone/#ixzz1Jdk9fjzC

[buglerbilly]

The Strange Case of the (Nearby) But Missing F-22s Over Libya

Posted by Mark Thompson Sunday, April 17, 2011 at 10:21 pm



So the Air Force's latest and greatest warplane – the $412 million per copy F-22 – has now been MIA in Iraq, Afghanistan and – most surprisingly – in imposing the no-fly zone over Libya. How come? Especially when it was already in the neighborhood on the eve of that conflict? It raises a whole new version of the so-called "plans-reality mismatch" that was the basis of Pentagon analyst Chuck Spinney's famed 1980s' briefs that won all sorts of acclaim – and infamy, including the cover of Time.

But Spinney was pointing out the difference between what the Pentagon wanted, and what the Pentagon could afford. The 21st Century version of the plans-reality mismatch is more fundamental: why are we paying through the nose to buy weapons we're not using?

The F-22 – a fast-flying aircraft that is purportedly the world's best at eluding enemy radars, didn't become operational until 2005. It planely wasn't required for Afghanistan, in any event. But its stealthiness would have been key in enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya. Since it's supposedly immune to being shot down by Libya's air defenses, there would have been no need for that initial, largely U.S., bombing campaign to wipe them out.

In fact, it appears the U.S. military went out of its way to use every warplane in its inventory except the F-22 in the Libyan fight: A-10s, AC-130s, AV-8Bs, B-1s, B-2s, F-15s, F-16s and F-18s all saw action. Why the F-22 didn't see action depends on whom you ask.

Gen. Norton Schwartz, the Air Force chief of staff, told senators on March 17 – two days before the first bombs fell on Libya – that the F-22 would play a key role in any such action. "It will be -- would be -- useful, and I would have the expectation that at least in the early days it certainly would be used." He offered up that answer in response to a convenient question from Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., whose state plays a major role in building the F-22.

Air Force boosters were salivating at the prospect of the F-22's combat debut. One veteran fighter pilot privately told Aviation Week magazine Libya would be a "perfect scenario" for the F-22's baptism by fire.

Dan Goure of the Lexington Institute, a think tank funded, in part, by major defense contractors, said Gates earlier had "effectively shut down discussion of the no-fly option" by warning how difficult it would be to impose. "Apparently, the secretary forgot that he has an airplane specifically designed to operate in contested airspace, full of hostile SAMs and aircraft," Goure wrote March 7. "It is the world's first fifth-generation fighter, the F-22. With its stealth features, supercruise power and advanced sensors, the F-22 is designed to operate against air defenses operating so-called triple-digit SAMs and lots of fighters."

Nearly two weeks later, the U.S. piece of the Libyan war began -- and ended -- without the F-22s. When Rear Adm. Gerald Hueber, chief of staff of the operation, was asked how come the F-22 was AWOL after four days of action, he responded forthrightly: "I don't have that...answer."

One reason for leaving the F-22 out of the action was the fact that the U.S. and its allies were determined to impose more than a no-fly zone over Libya. They wanted to protect civilians, and a no-fly zone can only do so much to halt slaughter on the ground. The F-22, while pre-eminent against aerial threats, remains poor at detecting ground targets six years after going operational. Its APG-77 radar's ground-hunting capability is still in development. Even once it works, the F-22 can carry no more than eight 250-pound bombs.

Two weeks after telling Congress the F-22 "certainly" would be used, Air Force chief Schwartz pulled what pilots call a chandelle -- a 180-degree turn. "Had the F-22s been in Europe, stationed in Europe both closer in proximity and therefore more available, they undoubtedly would have been used," Schwartz told a Senate panel March 30. "It really was an expedient judgment with respect to putting the plan together to executing on a very rapid timeline." (This is airpower the general is discussing -- airpower as in break-the-sound-barrier -- airpower like the B-1s and B-2 that flew missions over Libya…from their bases inside the United States.)

So much for Schwartz's "certainly" of a couple of weeks earlier. In fact, a person close to the F-22 program says six F-22s were in the neighborhood -- in the United Arab Emirates -- shortly before the Libyan action began. Specifically, they were in there from late January until early March. "The F-22 squadron was made ready to deploy for Libya ops at least twice," he adds. "The deployed unit was delayed in its redeployment for potential use, but then cleared to redeploy."

Retired Air Force lieutenant general Dave Deptula, a former fighter pilot, air war boss and Air Force intel chief, says politics kept the F-22 on the sidelines. "The F-22 could have established a no-fly zone over Libya without any other airplanes being required to overfly Libya," he says. "That would have obviated the need for any other coalition partner from participating, and therefore was not a desirable option politically."

But there's also a bigger lesson here than alliances, and the glue needed -- or not needed -- to hold them together. The F-22 has been the wedge issue between Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the Air Force since Gates took the Pentagon helm four years ago. The Air Force was hell-bent on buying more F-22s, and Gates was just as determined to stop the program at 188 jets.

The F-22 is a "niche, silver-bullet solution for one or two potential scenarios, specifically the defeat of a highly advanced enemy fighter fleet," Gates said in 2009 when he was fighting to slay the F-22 dragon over strong Air Force opposition. "The F-22, to be blunt, does not make much sense any place else in the spectrum of conflict."

Gates went on to elaborate in a way that angers many wearing Air Force blue. "Supporters of the F-22 lately have promoted its use for an ever-expanding list of potential missions," he noted. "These range from protecting the homeland from seaborne cruise missiles to, as one retired general recommended on television, using F-22s to go after Somali pirates, who are -- in many cases, teenagers with AK-47s -- a job we already happen to know is better done, and at rather less cost, by a few Navy SEALs."

Ouch. That's arguing with extreme prejudice (of course, quoting retired generals spewing forth on TV is like shooting fish in a barrel, Mr. Secretary).

Deptula acknowledges the precise reason the F-22 was a no-show in the no-fly may never be known. "For a variety of reasons it is doubtful that the actual reason will be made public," he says. "Unfortunately, some reasons why may be to mask the decision that was made by the [Pentagon] leadership [i.e., Gates] to terminate the total buy of F-22s at significantly less than the actual military requirement, and/or to avoid any use of the F-22 that highlights its capability that might call for its continued production."

Gates ultimately won this fight, ending F-22 purchases at 188 planes at nearly a half-a-billion dollars each. Yet, in the final analysis, the program met its budget target. "The F-22 spent about the same amount that they originally estimated," Moshe Schwartz, a weapons-buying expert at the Congressional Research Service, told a Senate panel last month. There was only one problem: "They got a third of the aircraft" originally projected for that sum.

The Government Accountability Office summed it up like this last month:

Despite a 70% reduction in quantities for the program, total acquisition costs have only decreased by 14%, due to research and development and average procurement unit cost increases. As a result, program acquisition unit costs for the F-22 Raptor have almost tripled, from $139 million to $412 million per airplane. For the current 188 aircraft program, the $273 million increase per plane translates to $51.3 billion in lost buying power for the F-22 program as a whole.

Poof! More than $50 billion -- gone! -- just like that. Breathtaking, heart-breaking, infuriating, whether you're a pilot, a patriot, or a taxpayer – or some combination thereof.

So the nation has paid triple its estimated cost for an airplane apparently unsuited for any of the three wars the nation is now waging. Kind of makes you hope we do better buying the F-35 warplane, under development for the Air Force, Marines and Navy. Compared to the F-22, it's supposed to be a bargain: 2,457 planes for $383 billion, only $156 million apiece. As of today.

Read more: http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/04/17/the-strange-case-of-the-nearby-but-missing-f-22s-over-libya/#ixzz1JwCdIyUq

[buglerbilly]

Quad A 2011: Raytheon joins race for next-generation PCAS

April 19, 2011

Raytheon has been selected by the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to compete with Northrop Grumman in the development of its Persistent Close Air Support (PCAS) initiative, designed to improve coordination between Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTACs), airborne sensors and weapons.

As exclusively revealed by Shephard (Unmanned Vehicles April/May 2011), the company has been awarded a $7 million contract which will see it go head-to-head with Northrop Grumman as mission systems integrator. The programme is due to run for a total of four years, although this first phase contract encompasses an 18-month lead up to a Preliminary Design Review. DARPA is then expected to down-select either Northrop Grumman or Raytheon to continue with the second phase.

David Bossert, engineering fellow for unmanned systems at Raytheon told Shephard at the Quad A annual exposition that the programme was designed to complement the 'next-generation JTAC'. He also described how the company would be looking to improve JTAC interfaces; levels of autonomy for weapons effect and routing of UAS; as well as on-board processing.

Raytheon also confirmed that the Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II or 'Warthog' would be the selected vehicle for the programme, with partnering company Proxy Aviation Systems upgrading it into an OPV. Rockwell Collins and GE Aviation are also partnering Raytheon to integrate JTAC equipment and OPV weapons respectively. DARPA had also been considering QF-4 and QF-16 aircraft for the programme.

According to the DARPA RfI, which was released last year, PCAS was seeking 'potential alternatives to the UAS component of a Next-generation CAS system' with a flight demonstration expected by 2013. It called for 'more effective' CAS missions using small/smart munitions, state-of-the-art networks and JTAC equipment for digital acquisition, tracking and target prosecution.

'We are looking at decreasing the time involved for CAS; increased situation awareness and improved man-machine interfaces for the JTAC; as well as system level autonomy,' Bossert told Shephard.

'DARPA wants an operational concept and we are looking for precision engagement combining sensors, targeting equipment, automomy, weapons and users involved. The first phase will concentrate on trade studies on different technology for the JTAC, platform and UAS operator,' he continued.

A likely solution is expected to include a heads-up-display, computer processor and targeting capability Bossert added with size, weight and power issues prevalent. The programme will not however, consider new aircraft, weapons, beyond-line-of-sight communications, sensors and weapons data link, he concluded.

By Andrew White, Nashville

[buglerbilly]

DATE:23/04/11

SOURCE:Flight International

PICTURES: MC-130J Combat Shadow enters flights tests

By Stephen Trimble

Lockheed Martin will begin a five-month series of flight tests of the MC-130J Combat Shadow after completing first flight on 22 April.

The first MC-130J is scheduled for delivery in September to Cannon AFB, New Mexico, where it will start replacing Air Force Special Operations Command's (AFSOC's) MC-130Ps that entered service in 1986.


©Lockheed Martin

The USAF plans to buy as many as 37 MC-130Js under a $1.6 billion programme through 2016. The first 15 MC-130Js are already under contract, five more aircraft authorized to be on contract.

Lockheed designed the MC-130J, which performs low-altitude aerial refuelings for helicopters and tiltrotors, using the KC-130J tanker as the baseline.


©Lockheed Martin

The first MC-130J rolled-out of Lockheed Martin's final assembly plant on 6 April.

The production line at Marietta, Georgia, was modified to allow in-line modifications, such as the installation of a boom refueling receptacle. The MC-130J also adds more powerful electrical generators, electro-optical/infrared sensor and an enhanced service life wing.

AFSOC is planning to deploy the first MC-130J operational unit in Fiscal 2012.

[buglerbilly]

USAF To Hold Separate Contests for 2 Helos

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 25 Apr 2011 17:47

The U.S. Air Force said April 25 that it will hold separate competitions for its Common Vertical Lift Support Platform (CVLSP) and HH-60 recapitalization programs.

The CVLSP program is designed to replace the service's geriatric fleet of Bell UH-1N Huey helicopters, which provide transportation to security forces at nuclear missile bases and help to evacuate lawmakers during emergencies. The HH-60 recapitalization program is the Air Force's effort to replace 112 increasingly decrepit HH-60G Pave Hawk combat search-and-rescue helicopters.

Service officials anticipate that both programs will draw industry bids based on aircraft derived from helicopters in production.

Maj. Gen. Randal D. Fullhart, the Air Force's global reach programs capability director, said that the service anticipates releasing a draft Request for Proposal in the summer, with the final RfP in the fall. The CVLSP fleet will consist of 93 aircraft spread among Air Force Global Strike Command, the Air Force District of Washington and other major commands.

"We're proceeding toward an initial operating capability for common vertical lift support platform program in 2015." Fullhart said.

For the HH-60 replacement program, Fullhart anticipates a request for proposals will be released in 2012. The Air Force did not say how many aircraft it would buy.

Industry welcomed the announcement.

"Sikorsky welcomes a competition to offer the proven H-60M Black Hawk aircraft for both the HH-60 Recap and CVLSP missions," said Tim Healy, Sikorsky's director for Air Force programs.

Healy said that the Air Force would derive significant savings from "Sikorsky's mature H-60M multi-year production line for the U.S. Army, and an established logistics support and aircrew/maintainer training effort."

If the company was selected for both missions, Sikorsky estimates a "conservative savings of $3 billion … over the 25-year operational life of 205 HH-60 Recap/CVLSP aircraft."

AgustaWestland also plans to compete for both tenders. It plans to bid its AW-139M helicopter for the CVLSP, and the larger AW101 for the HH60 replacement program.

"We're enthusiastic and look forward to working with the Air Force as they develop their specs for the CVLSP program and HH-60 recap, and we anticipate being very competitive," AgustaWestland vice-president for strategy Dan Hill said.

"We're ready."

Said John Williamson of The Boeing Co.: "Boeing looks forward to fully supporting the recently announced acquisition strategy to recapitalize the U.S. Air Force helicopter fleet."

[buglerbilly]

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

DATE:26/04/11

SOURCE:Flight International

USAF to open $2.6 billion in helicopter contracts to competitive bidding

By Stephen Trimble

The US Air Force has decided to accept competitive bids for two helicopter contracts worth more than $2.6 billion, after dismissing internal proposals to award the deals to the Sikorsky/Lockheed Martin UH-60M Black Hawk.

Announced on 25 April, the decision also clarifies that the air force will not bundle awards for the common vertical lift support programme (CVLSP) and the HH-60G recapitalisation into a single contract.

Instead, the service plans to release a request for proposals for CVLSP before September and the HH-60G next year.

Although immediately hailed by taxpayer watchdogs, such as the Project on Government Oversight, the decision to accept competitive bids will require the air force to revisit one of its most embarrassing acquisition blunders of the past decade.


© Staff Sgt Aaron Allmon/USAF
The US Air Force has decided to accept competitive bids for two helicopter contracts worth more than $2.6 billion, after dismissing internal proposals to award the deals to the Sikorsky/Lockheed Martin UH-60M Black Hawk.

Two attempts to award the combat search and rescue (CSAR-X) contract to Boeing from 2006-08 were rejected by the US Government Accountability Office because of flaws in the evaluation process.

The air force eventually dropped the CSAR-X programme and started again by creating separate requirements to buy about 112 helicopters to replace 99 HH-60Gs and 93 more to replace about 62 Bell UH-1Ns for CVLSP. But it was not clear if it would allow the contracts to be opened for bidding.

Global Strike Command pushed the air force's acquisition community to award a sole-source contract to the Sikorsky/Lockheed team offering a modified UH-60M to meet both requirements.

The air force is allowed to circumvent competition rules in certain cases by invoking the 1932 Economy Act, which allows government agencies to buy equipment off existing contracts during national emergencies.

But the proposals drew criticism from some US lawmakers and watchdog organisations concerned about the USAF's attempt to secure the best possible deal through a competitive selection process.

The Sikorsky/Lockheed team supported the alternative, sole-source plan, but still "welcomes" the competition, the companies say.

AgustaWestland North America, meanwhile, is "eager" to offer the AW139 for the CVLSP contract and perhaps the AW101 for the HH-60G recapitalisation programme, says Dan Hill, vice-president of strategy and business development.

Both contract opportunities also could draw bids from the Boeing HH-47, Bell UH-1Y Super Huey and EADS North America's version of the Eurocopter AS332 Super Puma. Bell Boeing has also proposed the V-22 Osprey to replace the HH-60G fleet.

[buglerbilly]

Pentagon Taps EW For Second Wind

Apr 27, 2011

By David A. Fulghum
Washington



The U.S. has been falling behind in the arena of electronic warfare—a key element in defeating enemy air defenses—for perhaps the last 20 years.

That may explain why the Obama administration—while it is looking for further military cuts—has chosen electronic warfare (EW) as one of the few areas slated to receive a spending boost, says Frank Kendall, deputy under*secretary of defense for acquisition and *technology.

“We’ve not invested in the EW side of the house recently as we should be inclined to do,” Kendall says. “I would say it will receive increased emphasis as our focus shifts” to squeezing more costs out of the defense budget.

The Pentagon’s decision to retire the U.S. Air Force’s EF-111 EW and tactical jamming aircraft in May 1998 augured the beginning of the downturn. After just a few years, U-2s flying over northern Iraq were being threatened by air defenses that they were not aware existed. The reason that threat updates made by the Navy were not being passed on to the operational Air Force was because the latter’s EW community had been dispersed and there were no high-ranking advocates of the technology in senior leadership positions.

The retirement of the EF-111 and shifting EW responsibilities to the Navy comprised a piece of the equation, but Kendall is unsure whether it was the dominant factor.

“We used to regard ourselves as much more competitive in the EW environment than we have been in the last decade or two,” he says. “Our capabilities and the degree to which we are ahead of the [threat] power curve has atrophied. We have to take a look at that and get our strength back.

“I used to have the EW shop back in the late 1980s and early 1990s for [the Office of the Secretary of Defense] and we had a pretty robust program with a lot of products under development,” says Kendall. “We understood that we were in a game that kept going, and that you have to keep making advances continuously to stay ahead. We’ve gotten complacent since then. Some of it was due to force structure consolidation.

“I think we’re starting at this point to revitalize that field,” he adds.

Directed energy—such as high-energy lasers and high-power microwave weapons—may not fare as well, at least in the near term.

“Directed energy is one of those technologies that is always five years away,” Kendall says. “In the 1980s I was doing missile defense work for the Army, and at that time we were talking about directed energy being a few years away. There have been great advances in the technology, but there are still steps to be taken before we have practical weapons. When people ask what we want, the answer is affordable, executable [new] programs. In addition, we’re trying to get cost out of [existing] programs.”

The plan to resuscitate EW comes as the U.S. has arrived at the intersection of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), directed energy, cyberoperations and the need for electromagnetic battlefield management (EMBM). The electronic pollution in Baghdad, for example, produced an environment where turning on a new piece of equipment nearly always jammed something else. In Afghanistan, electronic management has improved but is still a problem.

“We’ve gotten much better at electronic de-confliction since we started operations in Baghdad in 2003,” says Lt. Gen. (ret.) Dave Deptula, who was chief of U.S. Air Force intelligence and ISR. Moreover, “with cyber being part of the planning process, there needs to be de-confliction with organizations capitalizing on operations in the cyberdomain. We tended not to do that kind of integration in the past. As a result, people were [electronically] stepping on one another. It was less bad when we did the buildup in Afghanistan.”

The Air Force is embracing the concept of adapting existing aerospace system by linking them in a way that creates new effects. Such linkages exploit integration of the various technologies carried on each platform. This leads the services away from packaging forces by using large numbers of specialized aircraft.

“With low-observable, fifth-generation aircraft carrying highly capable ISR, you can do things we’ve never been able to do before—such as putting out a network of aircraft so that if you lose a percentage of them, the rest of the force maintains its effectiveness,” says Deptula. “As we normalize cyberoperations as part of a warfighter commander’s toolbox—and get away from central control only by U.S. Central Command—we’ll be able to expand on some of these technologies that are available to us.”

Again, organizing and integrating these technologies will be a big problem. Already under consideration by the U.S. Navy is EMBM that will rationalize electronic warfare just as in air-to-air combat (AW&ST April 18, p. 18).

“We have to make sure [EMBM] doesn’t come with lots of layers,” says Deptula. “It’s exactly what needs to be done, but in order to put that kind of architecture in place, you need a fresh look at our whole air operations center concept. It’s now 20-plus years old. We need to move away from large, ponderous, centrally located facilities to distributed command-and-control processes that are much more flexible but still able to address the entire set of existing capabilities.

“There are going to be all kinds of parts and pieces that need to be orchestrated, and that need to be integrated with a plan for the effects you want to create,” he says. “Aircraft like the F-22 are flying sensor and electronic attack platforms that we need to capitalize on. We need to link all our fifth-generation [platforms] so that we can create this honeycomb of capability that we can put wherever we want.”

Two areas of spending and technology advances are linked to this vision for the Defense Department’s financial and operational future—information technology and the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. They will be prime targets for budget cutting and therefore likely political battlegrounds.

“We can always buy less,” Kendall declares. “The question is, what do you give up? We are at a point where we’ve got to make tough decisions about what risk we will accept, what mission capabilities we will have less of and [what we can] do less of [operationally] in the world.”

There will be a roles-and-missions review soon and yet another major review of F-35 costs that could affect the budget and force structure.

Kendall first wants a discussion with the Government Accountability Office about how it measures cost growth. He contends that GAO’s first-order analysis uses pretty crude metrics. Therefore, the first big cost number draws the most attention while, later, refined GAO assessments are ignored.

“Programs get in trouble; and when they do, they tend to attract fire,” Kendall says. “That doesn’t necessarily say their value is diminished. You still want the capability.”

The Joint Strike Fighter has had its share of problems, Kendall observes. The short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (Stovl) version has been a key element in that turmoil, as well as the mission software. But he notes that the aircraft “is also our highest priority.”

Options are to accept less capability on the platform, which means more operational risk, he says. Killing a program often just means starting over while losing the initial investment.

“We see progress [with the F-35 program], but not as much as we would like,” says Kendall. “Stovl is a question mark because of design issues. The program is maturing. The first production aircraft is flying. I don’t like to be an optimist about programs. But I do think that in the case of the F-35, we’re getting it under control.”

Meanwhile, upgrading information technology has its own set of unique cost-estimate problems.

“When I came in, I started trying to find people in the building who understood these systems,” he says. “There are classic problems like not having enough expertise on board to do things smartly. We also discovered that economies of scale have limitations. Something of that size creates a lot of complexity.”

Government regulation requirements are another source of complexity, he adds. “On a certain IT system, there were 170,000 compliance requirements that had to be implemented into the software. You don’t just take an off-the-shelf product and use it. The biggest problem we’ve had is trying to do too much too fast and not breaking the jobs up into manageable bites with well-defined requirements that are testable and that you can then cost well” in order to make accurate predictions.

Photo: Lockheed Martin

[buglerbilly]

Downed F-15 crew on Libya rescue: 'The best feeling'

By Larry Shaughnessy, Pentagon Producer

April 27, 2011 -- Updated 2303 GMT (0703 HKT)


Maj. Kenneth Harney is welcomed home by close friends at RAF Lakenheath, England, on March 26.

Washington (CNN) -- For hours on March 21, U.S. Air Force Maj. Kenneth Harney of Lexington, Kentucky, and Capt. Tyler Stark of Littleton, Colorado, were the focus of nearly every U.S. service member in the Mediterranean Sea region. Nearly a dozen aircraft, a platoon of Marines and even Libyan civilians worked to rescue Harney and Stark after their F-15 crashed in eastern Libya.

Most details about the mission, including their names, were a closely held secret by the military. But earlier this month, with little notice, their identities and details of their rescue came out during a welcome-home ceremony at their air base. For the first time, the men spoke publicly to a small group of friends, family and Air Force personnel.

The Air Force public affairs office posted pictures and video of the event on its official website, even after U.S. military public affairs officers involved in Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya told CNN their names would never be made public.

"You feel the weight of not only the Air Force, but the entire military, focusing on you, making sure you get home," Stark said recently in a video prepared by the Air Force.

The men were part of a the 48th Fighter Wing normally based at RAF Lakenheath, a Royal Air Force base that has hosted U.S. Air Force units for years in Suffolk, England. But on March 21 they took off from the U.S. air base in Aviano, Italy, in support of the no-fly zone enforcement over Libya.

At some point they ran into trouble.

"We soon find ourselves in a situation where we are forced to eject over potentially hostile territory, and over the country of Libya. Something that neither one of us would ever have thought that we'd have to do," Harney, the pilot of the Strike Eagle said.

The Air Force is still trying to figure out why the plane crashed and a post-incident investigation is ongoing, but four days after the crash, Vice Adm. Bill Gortney, director of the Joint Staff at the Pentagon, told reporters that the military was "confident that it is not a result of hostile fire."

After the ejection, Harney -- "Meso" to his fellow fliers -- and "Mask" Stark became separated. "When you find yourself alone, and you're isolated, in a country where there's hostiles, you are scared," said Harney, a veteran of both the Afghan and Iraq wars.

Stark was found by Libyan civilians who protected him from possible retaliation by forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, and eventually he was taken safely back to Europe. Details of how he was taken out of Libya have yet to be disclosed.

Harney's rescue came more quickly. He stayed in communications with another F-15 pilot still in the air over Libya. Eventually an MV-22 Osprey carrying Marines who were part of a Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel, or TRAP, team landed near his position.

"As that back door opened, I see a group of young Marine recon units jump out, and that was probably the best feeling I've ever felt in my entire life," Harney said. He was flown to the USS Kearsarge for a quick medical check then a short time later sent home with Stark to RAF Lakenheath, where friends and family welcomed them with hugs and a rendition of "God Bless America."

[buglerbilly]

AW139M and HH-71 Offers Lowest Cost and Optimal Performance for the Missions

(Source: AgustaWestland; issued April 27, 2011)

RESTON, Va. --- AgustaWestland North America, an AgustaWestland company, is pleased that the U.S. Air Force has announced it is moving forward with a competition for the Common Vertical Lift Support Platform and HH-60 recapitalization programs.

“AgustaWestland North America is prepared to participate and to vigorously compete for both the U.S. Air Force’s CVLSP and HH-60 recapitalization programs – two separate but important missions,” said AgustaWestland North America’s Chief Executive Officer, R. Scott Rettig. “We plan to offer the advanced military version of the best-selling AW139 – the AW139M – which has been fully missionized with proven U.S. military technology for CVLSP requirements, and the battle-tested HH-71 for the Combat Search and Rescue mission.”

Manufactured in the company’s Philadelphia, Pa. facility, the AW139M has been configured with the latest U.S. military technology from suppliers across the United States, ensuring that it is a cost effective, off the shelf option for the U.S. Air Force. The AW139M includes a high-definition FLIR, self-protection equipment including infrared detection and countermeasures, avionics, heavy duty landing gear, ballistic protection and other dedicated equipment, allowing all-weather operation at the U.S. Air Force’s northern-tier missile bases.

The HH-71, based on the operationally-proven AW101, offers a robust platform for critical combat search and rescue missions. With extensive experience in Afghanistan and Iraq, the HH-71’s size, low acoustic signature, long range all-weather capability and effectiveness in austere environments such as sand and snow enables the warfighter to complete challenging combat search and rescue missions with speed, range, security and safety. The HH-71 includes three engines providing aircrews the assurance that the mission can be safely completed, even under hostile or irregular warfare conditions.

AgustaWestland North America, a subsidiary of AgustaWestland, a Finmeccanica company, operates as a U.S. company under a special security agreement, responsible for the company's U.S. government programs. AgustaWestland is a global leader in military and commercial vertical-lift. With more than 100 years of experience in the aerospace industry, AgustaWestland provides an unrivalled range of rotorcraft and vertical-lift products and services for every military, government and commercial application.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Denuclearized USAF Bombers OK Under New START: General

By Dave Majumdar

Published: 4 May 2011 20:26

The U.S. Air Force will be able to keep a number of B-52H bombers flying as conventional weapons-only aircraft under the New START treaty with Russia, Defense officials told Congress May 4.

The denuclearized bombers would have to be certified as fully capable of flying conventional missions including dropping precision weapons by U.S. authorities before presentation before the Russians, said Air Force Gen. C. Robert Kehler, who leads U.S. Strategic Command.

Kehler was testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"We haven't gotten to the complete end of that string yet about approvals to represent it that way with the Russians - that's pending," Kehler said. "We believe we have a good way to do that still allows them to be capable for conventional missions."

Principle Undersecretary of Defense of Policy James Miller, who was also testifying, added the Defense Department had not quite settled on exactly how the B-52s would be converted before being presented to Russia for "exhibition."

A total of 40 B-52s and 20 B-2 stealth bombers will be kept for the nuclear role as part of the treaty's limitation of 700 delivery vehicles per side, according to Miller's testimony.

The Air Force will keep 420 out of 450 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM). However, the payload would be reduced to a single warhead per missile.

The Minuteman is capable of carrying all full loads of three warheads.

The U.S. Navy will fill out the rest of the nuclear triad with its fleet of 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines, which will carry "no more than 240 Trident II D5 [submarine launched ballistic missiles] at any time," Miller said in his testimony.

Miller said that both Russia and the U.S. had already conducted some of the steps required by the treaty. The two nations have exchanged nuclear weapons databases already.

The U.S. has exhibited the B-2 and B-1 stealth bombers to the Russians while the Russians have exhibited the RS-24, also known as the SS-27, road-mobile ICBM to the U.S., Kehler said.

The U.S. has also inspected a Russian SS-19 ICBM site, he added.

[buglerbilly]

USAF Indefinitely Grounds F-22 Raptors

By SCOTT FONTAINE and DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 5 May 2011 17:48

The U.S. Air Force has grounded all of its F-22 Raptors until further notice because of potential malfunctions in the fighter jets' oxygen-generation system.


The On-Board Oxygen Generating System has been under investigation since a November 2010 crash in Alaska. (File photo / U.S. Air Force)

Gen. William Fraser, commander of U.S. Air Combat Command, ordered a stand-down of the 165-plane fleet May 3, ACC spokeswoman Capt. Jennifer Ferrau said. Ferrau didn't immediately know how long the Raptors will be out of service.

The On-Board Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS) has been under investigation since an F-22 crashed in November just outside Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. Until the stand-down, Raptor sorties had been restricted to an altitude of 25,000 feet or below for training missions because of the potential malfunctions.

The limits were "designed for mishap prevention and is a prudent measure to ensure the OBOGS are operating safely," ACC spokesman Col. William Nichols said in March, when the command first publicly disclosed the investigation.

An OBOGS malfunction can be potentially life-threatening, said Hans Weber, who sat on the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration's Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee, and is president of Tecop International, a San Diego consulting firm.

"It's a big deal if you're at high altitude and you run out of oxygen," Weber said in a March interview.

At 50,000 feet, a human being has less than 10 seconds of useful consciousness, he said. The 25,000-foot altitude restriction would allow the pilot to quickly dive below 18,000 feet, where the atmosphere has enough oxygen to ensure prolonged survival in case of an emergency.

"It would take you so long when you're way up high, you may black out before you make it to a safe altitude," Weber said.

[buglerbilly]

After Grounding Raptors, USAF Eyes Other Jets' Oxygen Systems

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 6 May 2011 18:03

The U.S. Air Force, which on May 3 grounded its F-22 Raptors, has now identified which other aircraft might be affected by defective oxygen generators.


U.S. airmen watch as a U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor taxis toward a refueling station March 31 on the flightline at Kadena Air Base, Japan. The service has also probed oxygen systems on other jet models, too. (Airman 1st Class Maeson L. Elleman / U.S. Air Force)

Since at least November, the service has been investigating the On-Board Oxygen Generation Systems (OBOGS) aboard the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and other tactical aircraft and trainers. The service grounded the F-22s after a spike in incidents potentially related to hypoxia.

"No other airframes have been stood down due to this investigation; however, a parallel investigation is taking place on the on-board oxygen generation systems on the A-10, F-15E, F-16, F-35 and T-6 aircraft," said Capt. Jennifer Ferrau, an Air Force spokeswoman for Air Combat Command (ACC), the service's primary body for training and equipping the combat air forces.

Equipment such as the OBOGS is fairly standardized across multiple aircraft types, said Hans Weber, who sat on the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration's Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee, and is the president of Tecop International, a San Diego consulting firm.

"It's a big deal if you're at high altitude and you run out of oxygen," Weber said.

At 50,000 feet, a human being has less than 10 seconds of useful consciousness, he said.

Air Force Gen. William Fraser, commander of ACC, ordered a stand-down of the entire 158-plane F-22 fleet on May 3, Ferrau said. The service has not determined how long the Raptor fleet will remain grounded, nor has the exact nature of the problem been identified, she said.

"We are still working to pinpoint the exact nature of the problem. It is premature to definitively link the current issues to the OBOGS system," Ferrau said. "The safety of our airmen is paramount and we will take the necessary time to ensure we perform a thorough investigation."

There have been nine suspected cases of hypoxia during F-22 operations since mid-2008, and recently there has been a jump in the number of such incidents.

"Over the last week, we have experienced five additional F-22 'Physiological-Hypoxia Like' events across the Air Force, which led Commander of Air Combat Command to establish the current F-22 stand-down," Ferrau said.

Fraser has ordered an OBOGS Safety Investigation Board to get to the cause of these incidents, which now total 14.

Most of the incidents are characterized as "increased frequency of pilot reported physiological incidents such as hypoxia and decompression sickness," Ferrau said.

Air Force sources said that an OBOGS malfunction was suspected in a November crash outside Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, that claimed the life of Capt. Jeff Haney of the 525th Fighter Squadron.

Despite the known OBOGS incidents, the Air Force will not officially link the November crash to the oxygen generator malfunctions.

"It is inappropriate for us to comment on the F-22 crash in Alaska, since the accident investigation board report has not concluded," Ferrau said.

Lockheed Martin, which builds the F-22, has dispatched a five-person team of engineers to help with the Air Force OBOGS investigation, company spokeswoman Stephanie Stinn said.

[buglerbilly]

No Air: Why Weren't the F-22's Oxygen Problems Detected in Testing?

(Source: Project On Government Oversight; issued May 6, 2011)

The DEW Line's Stephen Trimble broke the news that the F-22 fleet is standing down "until further notice" due to concerns about a glitch in the on board oxygen system after pilots complained about hypoxia and decompression sickness (indicating they weren't getting enough oxygen).

An Air Force source told Defense News in March that defects with the On-Board Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS) may have been responsible for a F-22 crash that occurred in November, killing Capt. Jeffery Haney. Why wasn't this worked out in testing?

A review of annual reports from the director of Operational Testing and Evaluation (DOT&E) didn't uncover any mentions of oxygen issues, with the exception of a 2004 report noting that the contractor measured oxygen concentrations during simulated high-altitude mission profiles at their simulator system facility.

Former DOT&E Director Tom Christie told POGO he didn't recall problems with the system and that they could have been relatively easily fixed if they had been detected. According to Flight Global, Boeing led life-support development, including the OBOGS.

POGO has not been able to find other information on testing for the F-22's OBOGS, but simulation would not be sufficient to test the system. "It's not something you simulate," Christie told POGO. "It either works or it doesn't."

Even when these systems are working, an interview with aerospace and operational physiologist Capt. Matthew Taranto at the Las Vegas Sun explains that pilots must train their bodies to be able to tolerate 15 seconds of intense acceleration pressing down on them (9 G-forces) to resist oxygen deprivation to their brain.

The Navy recently awarded contractor Cobham a contract to develop a more advanced OBOGS system. It appears Cobham did not create the F-22's system, but did install the OBOGS for the A-10, F/A-18, V-22, C-130, and F-16.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

First F-35A formally delivered

Posted by Guy Norris at 5/9/2011 5:59 PM CDT

The U.S. Air Force officially accepted the first F-35 Joint Strike Fighter from Lockheed Martin at its Fort Worth, Texas facility on May 5. The milestone, which occurred with the formal acceptance of F-35A AF-7, comes just under 10 years since the F-35 System Development and Demonstration contract was awarded to Lockheed, and around 14.5 years since the signing of the original JSF development contract.


AF-7, officially on the USAF books, arrives over Edwards AFB (Lockheed Martin)

Following its handover AF-7 was flown on May 6 to Edwards AFB, Calif, to join the flight test program. Lockheed Martin says overall the F-35s have completed more than 865 flights since flight-testing began in late 2006. In addition to AF-7, eight more production-model F-35s have rolled out and are being prepared for delivery. Under current planning, the Air Force is expected to acquire 1,763 F-35As.

[buglerbilly]

DATE:09/05/11

SOURCE:Flight International

USAF eyes A-10 for comms jamming role

By Stephen Trimble

The mention of the A-10 again makes me wonder WHAT is going to replace it?

Four contractors will compete for a $200 million US Air Force programme to develop and produce an electronic attack (EA) pod that will be installed on unmanned aircraft systems and manned aircraft including potentially the Fairchild Republic A-10.

The pod is the first unclassified investment by the air force in EA technology since the cancellation of the B-52 standoff jamming system in 2005.

After an attempt to revive a scaled-down version of the radar jammer failed, the air force in 2009 launched a technically less ambitious EA pod focused on attacking the communication and network systems used by insurgents.

Such a pod would be used to jam improvised explosive devices (IEDs) or low-band communications signals, including mobile phones.

The EA pod would be installed first on any of 24 Block 5 versions of the General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc (GA-ASI) MQ-9 Reaper, which are upgraded with more power compared to Block 1 aircraft, the air force reveals in acquisition documents released in early May.

The pod also will be considered for carriage on other platforms including the A-10 and Lockheed Martin C-130, the documents show. The C-130 is the platform for the air force's primary communication jamming system - the Compass Call fleet.

Arming the A-10 with an electronic attack capability would be a first for the close air support and ground attack fighter, and would likely be used in counter-IED roles.

The air force has designed the EA pod programme to develop an operational system as quickly as possible. The technology maturity phase began last Novemeber. At least three companies - BAE Systems, ITT and Raytheon - received small contracts to start designing technologies required for a fly-able pod.

In July, the air force plans to award follow-on technology development contracts to up to four companies leading to an engineering and manufacturing development phase in 2013.

[buglerbilly]

US to station F16 jets in Poland

President Barack Obama is set to formally announce the deployment of US military aircraft to Poland, in a move that could damage Washington's relations with Moscow.

By Matthew Day, Warsaw

1:29AM BST 10 May 2011

Mr Obama visits Polandat the end of the month and is expected to confirm the stationing of F16 combat aircraft on Polish soil during meetings with Bronislaw Komorowski, his Polish counterpart, and other central and eastern European leaders.

Citing diplomatic sources, the Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza claimed that 16 US jets will move from their current home at the Aviano air force base in Italy to Lask in central Poland, and will be stationed on a rotational basis from 2013.

The American president is also expected to hold talks about stationing SM-3 interceptor missiles in Poland as part of Washington's plans for a missile defence shield. The United States already has a Patriot missile battery in Poland.

Russian analysts said Moscow was likely to react badly to news that Washington was expanding its military footprint in Poland, due to its proximity to the Russian border and its status as a former Soviet satellite state.

"It will give ammunition to sceptics here who constantly claim that Washington says one thing while doing exactly what it wants anyway," said Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of the influential Russia in Global Affairs magazine.

"This is about relations between Russia and the United States and it cannot but fail to cause a negative and even nervous reaction in certain circles."

But Mr Lukyanov said the US-Russia relationship would stand or fall on whether the two countries could reach an understanding about new US missile defence plans for Europe, rather than the issue of F16 fighters in Poland.

The Kremlin has long known that Washington plans to install interceptor missiles in Poland as part of the shield but is looking for binding guarantees that the system will not threaten Russia's nuclear forces.

For the Polish government the presence of US military hardware on its soil should provide security guarantees that far exceed the fighting capacity of 16 aircraft. Radek Sikorski, Poland's foreign minister, has campaigned for tangible American military assets in Poland arguing it would lock the US into supporting Poland and thus enhance the nation's security.

His desire also reflects Polish unease over the willingness and capacity of Nato to stand by its defence commitments.

In a 2009 cable from the US embassy in Warsaw leaked to WikiLeaks, Victor Ash, then US ambassador, said Mr Sikorski had described Nato as a "political club with no teeth".

Writing in the wake of the 2008 Russian-Georgian war, Mr Ash also mentioned the "Sikorski doctrine" under which "any further attempt by Russia to redraw borders by force or subversion should be regarded by Europe as a threat to its security".

[buglerbilly]

This covers ALL Forces but the USAF has a priority in some areas................

Virtual Worlds Form Defense Training Frontier

(Source: U.S Department of Defense; issued May 9, 2011)

WASHINGTON --- Five years from now, if Frank C. DiGiovanni has his way, warfighters from every service will learn aspects of their trade on a world in cyberspace. The Defense Department will save money, time, and ultimately, lives, he said, and it’s his job to make that virtual world a reality.

DiGiovanni is director of training readiness and strategy in the office of the deputy assistant secretary of defense for readiness. He’s also a retired Air Force colonel and a senior aviator.

“I’d love to see it happen in the next 18 months to two years,” DiGiovanni said in an interview with American Forces Press Service. “Realistically, a full-up world is probably five years away.”

Over the next five years, the Defense Department will build that world in cyberspace, where the men and women of the armed forces will take another step forward in the transition from analog to digital technology that began with the public Internet and DOD websites.

A virtual world is a computer-based simulated environment that’s available 24 hours a day. Users create digital representations of themselves, called “avatars,” that build out the world, creating content and communicating with each other.

Second Life is one of many virtual worlds that exist in cyberspace. It opened in 2003, created by Linden Lab, a San Francisco-based company founded in 1999 by Philip Rosedale to create a new form of shared experience.

Second Life residents -- 20 million and rising, from hundreds of countries -- build and own the world’s digital infrastructure. This includes homes, vehicles, campuses of real-life universities, museums, nightclubs, stores, libraries, landscapes, games, islands, companies, government organizations and military bases.

A handful of U.S. government agencies have facilities of varying complexity and interaction in Second Life. These include NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Institutes of Health and its National Library of Medicine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Homeland Security, the House of Representatives and more every day.

The Defense Department’s virtual world may be five years away, but the Army, Navy and Air Force all have public and private facilities in Second Life, and in other virtual worlds, including Teleplace and OpenSimulator.

In Second Life, U.S. military activities take place on a growing collection of islands called “Military Islands.”

MiLands was established in 2008 by Doug Maxwell, formerly of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center and now science and technology manager for virtual world and strategic applications at the Army Simulation and Training Technology Center in Orlando, Fla. MiLands includes the Air Force Air Education and Training Command and Air University, the Naval Undersea Warfare Command and other Navy projects, a Marine Corps island, several Army groups and Coalition Island, a military hub.

Each group uses Second Life for activities that include training, education, collaboration and research.

DiGiovanni praises these efforts as “pioneering work done by the services and some people with great vision who really saw the potential” of virtual worlds for military uses. “But we felt it was ad hoc,” DiGiovanni said.

For the DOD virtual world experts are working on “a governance model that makes sense” in which everyone in the world can participate, DiGiovanni said, much like the Constitution allows American citizens to participate in their government.

“A governance model allows you to take all the efforts that are going on and synchronize them, integrate them, so you have a comprehensive whole, and not four separate efforts,” he added.

“I don’t want four separate worlds, I want one world … to be able to leverage all that content building that’s being done by everyone out there,” the director said.

DiGiovanni began thinking about emerging technologies when he was asked to develop a training environment that was available globally, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Some of the inspiration for virtual world military training came from massively multiplayer online games, such as Halo and Call of Duty, he said.

“When you look at the ability to go to an online game, pick a team ad hoc, decide on the tactic and then start the game,” DiGiovanni added, “that’s when you think, if we can do that in the commercial world, the Defense Department needs a similar capability.”

A “perfect storm” of resource constraints, global repositioning of troops coming home from the Middle East, and competing demands for land, air and maritime training capability makes it critical to develop a virtual training capability, he said.

Such an environment, DiGiovanni said, must be “augmented with some type of physical training to make sure that what you’re learning in the virtual world can be exported to the real world.”

Virtual training can be very effective, he added, and can help people become much more proficient in the limited amount of time and space available with live resources.

The Strategic Plan for the Next Generation of Training for the Department of Defense, published in 2010, DiGiovanni said, discusses “leveraging emerging technologies to enhance our training capabilities.”

The plan was fully vetted across all four services and signed by Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III, he added.

Essential features of a technology-based training environment, the report says, include synchronizing “live and virtual training operations in near-real time to enable realistic simulation of sensors, replication of visual cues and platform interactions [among] live, virtual and constructive participants.”

DiGiovanni and his staff meet with industry experts and consult regularly with the technological pioneers who are building virtual capacity today for the military services.

Carl Rosengrant, senior technical adviser for training readiness and strategy, said his office would soon receive the results of a study by industry experts to help DOD define the framework and tools needed to develop the Defense Department online world.

When the report is written and vetted with technology experts in the military services, DiGiovanni said, “We think we’ll be able to put the construct together that would allow us to build a world.”

American culture is well postured to lead a revolution in the use of the virtual training environment, DiGiovanni said.

“I challenge everyone to put their pioneering spirit on,” he said, “think about where technology can take us, and then let’s go there together.” (ends)

Air Force Eyes New Learning Systems in ‘Second Life’

(Source: U.S Department of Defense; issued May 9, 2011)

WASHINGTON --- In a pasture outside Dayton, Ohio, Wilbur and Orville Wright created the first practical airplane and taught themselves to fly it.

They called the place Huffman Prairie and flew the 1905 Wright Flyer III into history on that rough patch of land.

More than 100 years later, Air Force pioneers are creating a legacy in another place called Huffman Prairie, this one in a virtual world called “Second Life.”

“What really drew us out to [the virtual world] was this wonderful opportunity to interact and connect with people on a global scale and with high levels of creativity,” Andrew Stricker of the Air Force’s Air University at Maxwell Air Force Base’s Gunter Annex in Montgomery, Ala., told American Forces Press Service.

“We thought Second Life was perfect for doing innovation work in the Department of Defense,” said Stricker, whose team is part of Air University’s innovations and integration division.

The online world -- one of many now operating in cyberspace -- was launched by San Francisco-based Linden Lab in 2003. Second Life has 20 million registered user accounts from all over the world and is populated by avatars, or digital representations that users create for themselves.

Second Life residents explore the world, meet other residents, socialize, participate in individual and group activities, and create and trade virtual property and services.

All sorts of organizations, institutions and companies have established islands or activities in Second Life, including colleges and universities, libraries, government agencies, embassies, scientific research groups, religious organizations, and national defense ministries and departments, including the U.S. Defense Department and all of the services.

Stricker and his team help to design, develop and implement new learning technologies and standards into Air Force and professional military education programs.

The Air Force is exploring several virtual worlds for its work in education and has several prototype virtual learning communities in Second Life. These include MyBase -- a virtual Air Force base for recruiting, training, education and operations -- and different versions of Huffman Prairie called Huffman Prairie Chi, Huffman Prairie Omega, and others.

With MyBase, Air Force Maj. Gen. Erwin F. Lessel wanted an immersive experience that people could use to see what being in the Air Force is like, Stricker said.

At the time, Lessel -- who retired in 2010 -- was director of plans, programs, requirements and assessments for the Air Force. One of his responsibilities was developing and implementing future learning concepts.

“We created all these different roles that people can learn about as they travel through MyBase in Second Life -- what it’s like to be a chaplain in the Air Force, what it’s like to be part of a medical team, to be in basic military training, to be a pilot.”

During a recent interview, Stricker joined Patrick “Mike” McCrocklin, chief of the innovations and integrations division in Air University’s education logistics and communications directorate, and Evelyn Milton, an information technology program analyst in the same division.

From MyBase, Milton said, avatars can “teleport or fly over to another region next to it and see a replication of a Navy area. The Naval Undersea Warfare Center out of Rhode Island is to the west of us in Second Life.”

To the north of MyBase are two Army sections, she said, one called OneSource, a virtual community that lets geographically dispersed soldiers, family members and friends stay in touch.

“Each region we have out there is dedicated to some particular area of learning,” McCrocklin said. “Huffman Prairie Gamma, for instance, is dedicated to educational informatics. MyBase Zeta is our gaming range.”

At MyBase Zeta, the Air Force built a training game called “Operation Relief Worker Rescue Challenge” to teach Air Force Academy cadets about leadership.

“We got together with the Air Force Academy and the Center for Creative Leadership,” Stricker said, “and built a game where players had to go into the virtual world and rescue hostages who had been taken captive.”

During the challenge, the players operate in a specific scenario under a deadline and have to share information and work together.

On the gaming range, avatars also freely interact with terrain, buildings, devices and equipment. The range has systems that can identify, track and score team members and follow voice and text communication among them.

There are briefing rooms, video recordings of game activity, target damage and scoring, simulated weather, day or night conditions, assignment of equipment and tools to each team member, and goal-oriented task action, timing and feedback controls for use by game referees.

Stricker said the leadership game was chosen as an example of interactions and innovations among people, organizations, processes and technology in the 2009 book, “Crosscutting Issues in International Transformation,” published by National Defense University.

In 2010, the Federal Virtual Worlds Challenge recognized another Air University project.

The challenge is an annual, open, global call for the best virtual world implementations on a specific topic.

The Army Research Laboratory Simulation and Training Technology Center leads the effort, and in 2010 the topic was training, with categories for collaboration, skill building, instruction and visualization.

The $25,000 grand prize went to Stricker, McCrocklin and Cynthia Calongne of Air University for the Mars Expedition Strategy Challenge.

Working with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Stricker said, “we basically took commission studies the White House sponsored on human space flight options for the future of the United States, and made a game out of it.”

In its recommendation, the commission had to weigh technology and cost issues, competitive stances for the country, political considerations and more.

“In this game, you’re presented with the same kind of evidence the commission interacted with and you have to formulate your own position and articulate why you’ve taken it,” Stricker said.

“At the end of the game, you’re able to compare your recommendation to the commission’s,” he added, “and people tell us it’s a fun thing to do to see how close you’ve come.”

Virtual worlds have the potential to transform education, Stricker said, by taking students on a journey that goes beyond reading words in a textbook.

“As students must do in real life,” he said, in virtual-world learning situations “they have to develop skill sets to read the environment around them, collect data, interpret it, rationalize through understanding how to weigh the evidence, and then synthesize it and take a position.”

In Second Life and other virtual worlds, Stricker said, his team creates scenarios that allow students to manipulate pieces of a problem and see the consequences of their choices.

“You have the students build a model of what they think they understand,” he said. “Say if you’re a meteorologist in the Air Force and you’re trying to understand the effects of certain geographic characteristics on weather flow patterns. Then you can manipulate the model and see the consequences.”

The team has built similar models for sustaining geothermal energy and, with the Air Force Institute of Technology, for understanding the effects of materials and atmospheric conditions on radar signals.

It’s like a revolution that’s occurring in what we can teach our students,” Stricker said. “Now students who may have had a hard time learning [from a book] can see a visualization. Our students are telling us that this is profound.”

Virtual worlds are inherently collaborative, Stricker said, for students as well as for those who teach.

Multiple universities and agencies participate in every single Air Force virtual world project, he added.

“We think a really exciting future is shaping up ,” Stricker said, “where we’re breaking down walls across the services [and] finding common ground.”

When Stricker and McCrocklin first discovered Second Life, they were drawn in by innovation occurring among people who collaborated across disciplines involving art, education and computer science, and across industry and government.

“We’re big believers in bringing people together who otherwise wouldn’t know the other groups exist,” Stricker said. Hetold a story about their early days in Second Life.

One day at virtual Huffman Prairie, where they had built a 1920s airfield, he said, their avatars were testing an unmanned aerial vehicle.

“We were flying this thing around in front of our virtual hangars,” Stricker said, “and an avatar we’d never seen walks up and says, ‘Are you Dr. Stricker?’

Stricker, whose Second Life avatar is called Spinoza, was surprised, but said yes. The other avatar said, “Hold on, I’ll go get my dad.”

“Hi, I’m General Lessel,” the director of Air Force plans, programs, requirements and assessments said over his son’s Second Life voice chat. “I heard about you guys out here. I only have a few minutes, but tell me a little about what you’re doing.”

“For the next hour and a half, we walked him around and showed him stuff,” Stricker said. “From that experience, he flew out here … and sat down with Mike’s team.”

Soon after, Sticker said, “he asked us to demonstrate what we could do with virtual worlds for the Air Force.”

“It matters a great deal that DOD is into [virtual worlds] right now,” Stricker said, “so we understand and can leverage and gain from our experiences how to go forward in the future.”

[I]-ends-

[buglerbilly]

DATE:10/05/11

SOURCE:Flight International

Alenia Aermacchi boss: T-X will be duel between M-346 and T-50

By Murdo Morrison

Alenia Aermacchi believes its M-346 twinjet will be in a two-horse race with the Korea Aerospace Industries/Lockheed Martin T-50 for the US Air Force's T-X trainer requirement, with the competition kicking off in earnest with an "industry day" around the Paris air show.

Alenia Aermacchi general manager Alessandro Franzoni expects a technical evaluation phase in the first quarter of 2012, by which time the Italian company hopes to be well down the road of selecting a prospective US manufacturing site and domestic suppliers for a T-100 version of the M-346.

The fact that the customer has said it wants a "non-experimental platform" for the T-X rules out unproven designs, said Franzoni, while the BAE Systems Hawk could be edged out on performance.


© Alenia Aermacchi

The Finmeccanica subsidiary is in the process of shortlisting 15-20 locations for a factory, which Franzoni said will be a "replica" of the highly automated M-346 assembly line in Venegono, near Milan, which has the capacity to build 48 of the advanced trainers a year.

Alenia Aermacchi will hand over the first of what is likely to be a total of 15 M-346s to the Italian air force during the Paris show as part of an integrated training package that should see the aircraft formally enter service in January 2013. The first of 12 aircraft for Singapore is also in production and will be delivered in May 2012.

The M-346 has been selected by the United Arab Emirates, although an expected order for 48 aircraft has yet to be signed. Franzoni also expects to bid for competitions in Israel and Poland.

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Acquisition Armageddon

Posted by David A. Fulghum at 5/12/2011 12:14 PM CDT

With the Pentagon facing yet another round of budget cutting there are hints that the U.S. Air Force’s new bomber program is popular and the increasingly expensive F-35 program is not.

“The [new] bomber is incredibly important to us,” says Erin C. Conaton, Under Secretary of the Air Force. “To remain a world-class power, we need a penetrating bomber force that can touch difficult-to-reach areas of the globe.

For cost reasons, “The mandate is to not look at exquisite capabilities, but rather at a requirement set that isn’t trying to do everything on board a single platform,” she says. “That’s part of the reason we’re looking at a family of systems [with] intelligence, reconnaissance, electronic attack and communications partnering with that strike platform to get it where it needs to be.”

So far, the service has begun standing up a program office, Conaton says. A considerable amount of analysis has gone into making decisions about the family of systems, but the detailed requirements work is still ahead

'We got a general mandate to stand up the program office. There is a fair amount of analysis that went into decisions about the family of systems, but the detailed requirement work is still to come.'

Asked about the vulnerability of the F-35 program to additional cuts, Conaton hinted that because of rising costs and the need to make up in some degree for the retirement of 1,500 fighters and strike aircraft, Joint Strike Fighter spending will be regularly scoured for more savings and additional “efficiencies.”

“We’re committed to recapitalizing our fighter force,” Conaton says. “There’s no doubt though, [that] we are going to look at every part of our budget – acquisition, people and O&M. I can’t give a precise answer about where [the F-35 spending] is going to be. [But,] we’re going to look at a range of programs that might be ripe for additional efficiencies.”

Newly revealed details of F-35 cost issues, assembled for the Pentagon’s Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) dated Dec. 31, shows an average procurement unit cost (APUC) of $125 million for 1,763 USAF F-35s and $150 million for the Navy variants. Already the cumulative cost and schedule pressure have resulted in Munn-McCurdy breaches in the 2001 and 2007 baselines for both program acquisition unit cost (PAUC) and APUC. According to the SAR, “the breech is currently at 78.23% for the [original 2001 figures] and 80.66% for the APUC.” The increase over the 2007 baseline is figured at 27.34% for the PAUC and 31.23% for the APUC. “These increased costs reflect the comprehensive program restructure … that occurred in 2010,” the report continued. “New calculation will be completed against the new Acquisiton Program Baseline currently being updated for the milestone B review scheduled [for this month].”

But there are already obstacles to rapid improvements to altering budgets, roles and missions. At the top of the list is the demand for additional experienced and specially trained officials to speed the acquisition process. However, demand is far greater than the supply.

“Shaping the civilian workforce is not an inconsequential challenge,” Conaton says. “We’re attempting to grow our civilian workforce over the next five years by about 25,000 people, but the allowance we’ve been given is about 4,000 people.”

“We have to reallocate our civilian work force under very different assumptions, which means not doing planned in-sourcing and a variety of other things so that we’re not unduly hitting one area of our work with the cumulative effect by reducing both civilian employees and contractors. That analysis is on-going. We don’t know exactly how this is going to get laid in. The choices haven’t been made yet, but we know the reduction is real.”

Moreover, there are institutional differences between the Pentagon and Congress that will continue to ensure that negotiations over future defense budget cuts and a reassessment of military roles and missions will be difficult, says Conaton, who previously served as staff director for the House Armed Services Committee.

“The speed of action is much different,” Conaton says. Where a letter from a lawmaker may take three hours to prepare and send, the reply [from the Air Force] may take “six to eight weeks if we are being speedy.” That delay is perceived in Congress as either a hidden problem or a purposeful delay on the military’s part.

Another issue is “long memories” among Congressional staffers who have been in place far longer than their defense counterparts, she says. Military planners are often blind-sided by understandings or agreements made years before in other administrations about how programs are to be conducted and on what schedule.

“We have to understand what we’ve said in the past, be consistent to the maximum degree and, if we make a change, be able to explain why,” Conaton says

[buglerbilly]

Oxygen-generator inquiry covers all AF fighters

By Dave Majumdar - Staff writer

Posted : Monday May 16, 2011 8:15:43 EDT

The Air Force investigation into problems with the F-22’s oxygen-generation systems extends beyond the Raptor and includes fighters the service has been flying for decades.

A safety investigation board, headed by an Air Force flag officer, is looking at problems with the On-Board Oxygen Generation Systems of the F-16, F-15E, A-10, F-35 and T-6 aircraft, service officials said May 6, three days after all F-22s were grounded because of a spike in hypoxia incidents during flight.

“The OBOGS safety investigation is looking at all oxygen generation systems, casting a broad net for comparison of designs and functionality, thereby peeling back all aspects to seek any peculiarities of design, operation and performance,” said Capt. Jennifer Ferrau, an Air Force spokeswoman representing Air Combat Command.

“No particular subsystem had stood out as an area of concern, so this investigation seeks to identify any area of concern,” she said.

The board conducting the investigation includes safety investigation officers, pilots, doctors, engineers, maintainers and other specialists.

Hans Weber, who sat on the Federal Aviation Administration’s Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee and is the president of Tecop International, a San Diego consulting firm, said the Air Force likely does not yet have a good idea of what the problem with the OBOGS is.

“I’m sure it’s a surprise to everybody with a system that has been in operation for decades that all of a sudden, they run into problems with it,” he said.

Each generation of aircraft improves upon the technology, Weber said.

It is possible that during the drive to shrink and lighten the OBOGS for the F-22, engineers may have inadvertently introduced a problem; there may be something unique about the F-22’s OBOGS design, Weber said.

“We haven’t had any such problem for a long, long time; that tells us something,” he said.

The Air Force would not release any other details about the investigation, except that the OBOGS-specific investigation started in January. Nor would the Air Force say whether pilots flying aircraft other than the Raptor had experienced hypoxia-related incidents.

The fact that the service ordered a fleetwide stand-down of the Raptor indicates a potentially significant problem, but it does not indicate a systemic issue with the U.S. tactical aircraft fleet, said Mark Gunzinger, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington and a former Air Force pilot.

Just to be safe

“There is not a huge, major problem with the entirety of the tactical aviation force, but it’s better to be safe than sorry,” he said.

However, Weber said the fact that the entire Air Force tactical fighter fleet is being investigated suggests that a wider problem with the OBOGS exists.

“The fleet investigation has a fairly high hurdle. There has to be something that is a big question mark or something that is a suspect part or system,” he said. “What they’re telling us here is that the investigation has not fingered any particular part.”

Both agree that there is a particular problem with the Raptor, however.

“The F-22 grounding itself implies that this is probably something that is a little more than a normal thing with the system,” Gunzinger said.

However, problems with subsystems are not unusual. The B-52 bomber, for example, has had problems with its brakes in previous years, he said.

The OBOGS’ most likely problem is the long-term reliability of certain components, Weber said. Parts that operated normally during tests might be wearing out more quickly than expected, he said, which could lead to the eventual modification and replacement of the parts as a potential fix.

If the problem’s cause is a subsystem that can be easily replaced, the grounding should be resolved fairly quickly, Gunzinger and Weber said. However, deeper structural defects with the OBOGS will take longer to fix.

In either case, in the longer term, modifications are likely to be necessary to resolve the problem, Weber said.

However, “I wouldn’t anticipate that this would be a very lengthy grounding,” Gunzinger said.

Weber said that of the aircraft named, the F-35 is most likely at risk for a similar problem. Both the F-22 and the F-35 use late-model OBOGS designs built by Honeywell. The other aircraft are at less risk because they have older systems built by another manufacturer, Cobham.

Neither company offered substantial comment.

The Pentagon’s F-35 program office said that while the F-35 had absorbed many lessons from the F-22 program, the systems onboard the newer jets have little in common with the Raptor.

“The F-35 and F-22 have common aircraft and oxygen-system suppliers, but the systems are very different. The program has leveraged the lessons learned from F-22 development to enhance the F-35 across all subsystems, including the Onboard Oxygen Generating System,” said F-35 program office spokesman Joe DellaVedova.

The F-35 program is supporting the investigation into the Raptor OBOGS problem, DellaVedova said.

“At this time, the program office does not see any commonality in the potential causal factors that the F-22 program is investigating,” he said.

The Navy said the F/A-18 fighter is not under investigation. The jet is known to use an OBOGS similar to those on Air Force planes that has had problems in the past.

[buglerbilly]

Deployed Air Refuelers Surpass 350 Million Pounds of Fuel Delivered in 2011

(Source: U.S Air Force; issued May 18, 2011)

SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, Ill. --- In the first four months of 2011, air refueling aircraft supporting the air mission on the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility have off-loaded more than 357 million pounds of fuel to more than 26,500 receiver aircraft.

The 357 million pounds of fuel figure, which is calculated and tracked by the U.S. Air Forces Central's Combined Air Operations Center in Southwest Asia, equates to approximately 52.58 million gallons -- enough fuel to fill an F-16 Fighting Falcon to its capacity with two external tanks more than 29,750 times.

Meeting the demand for the air refueling are the KC-135 Stratotanker and KC-10 Extender fleets. Both airframes operate in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility from non-disclosed bases in Southwest Asia as well as Kyrgyzstan.

KC-135s, and the Airmen who maintain and fly them, operate from multiple locations such as with the 340th Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron in Southwest Asia and the 376th Air Expeditionary Wing at the Transit Center at Manas, Kyrgyzstan.

The deployed KC-10 mission, meanwhile, operates with the 380th Air Expeditionary Wing's 908th EARS at another Southwest Asia base.

Wherever they operate from, many tanker Airmen say they are proud to support the deployed air refueling mission, and they know why it's so important to provide global power and global reach.

"We often fly long hours and in extreme weather conditions," said Capt. Sean Flynn, an Air Force Reservist and a KC-10 pilot who has deployed to the 908th EARS numerous times from the 514th Air Mobility Wing at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, N.J. "You really see the big picture while working in the area of responsibility. It takes everyone from the base support staff, to the bus drivers, to the maintainers to help get us to the end result which is a successful mission in which we can deliver well needed gas to help the fight."

In 2010, AFCENT statistics show the tankers off-loaded more than 1.05 billion pounds of fuel to more than 82,600 aircraft. It was the third consecutive year of where deployed tanker forces off-loaded more than 1 billion pounds of fuel for operations - the largest in 2008 with more than 1.1 billion pounds of fuel off-loaded.

Additionally, according to a talking paper from Air Mobility Command Headquarters at Scott AFB from May 13, mobility Airmen supporting the tanker mission have off-loaded more than 13.3 billion pounds, or 1.98 billion gallons, of fuel for operations since Sept. 11, 2001.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

F-22 Upgrade Taking Too Much Time, Money

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 19 May 2011 18:47

The latest hardware and software upgrade for the U.S. Air Force's F-22 Raptor stealth fighter jet is over budget and behind schedule, top Defense Department officials told Congress on May 19.

"The Increment 3.2 that we're currently working on for the F-22 for our war-fighting customer is taking too long to implement," Air Force procurement chief David Van Buren told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "We are working with the company [Lockheed Martin] to try to speed that up and make it more affordable."

Among other improvements, the upgrade will allow the F-22 to carry the AIM-9X infrared-guided air-to-air missile and the AIM-120D medium-range air-to-air missile, and to attack eight ground targets with eight 250-pound Small Diameter Bombs.

Software development appears to be the primary cause of the delay.

Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, said the F-22's software is written largely in Ada, a programming language that was once a DoD standard but whose use has waned in the past 15 years.

"It tends to impede quick upgrades to the system to which it is the base software," Thompson said.

Moreover, he said, "The affordability of any upgrade becomes debatable when you purchase a relatively small number of upgrades."

Lockheed has built 187 Raptors, of which two have been lost.

The company said it is working with the Air Force to accelerate fielding of the upgrade, which is split into two components, A and B, while trying to cut costs.

Lockheed has saved the Air Force $20 million by moving some electronic protection software from Increment 3.2B to Increment 3.2A, company spokeswoman Alison Orne stated in an email.

"We have successfully accelerated several Electronic Protection capabilities," she said. "These capabilities were previously planned to field in 2017 and are now part of the 3.2A baseline planned to field in 2014."

The company also is looking at 100 additional items on which it could cut costs for the second half of the upgrade.

"Each savings candidate is being reviewed for potential inclusion into the baseline Increment 3.2B program," Orne said.

Despite Lockheed's confidence, the Defense Department's leaders are worried about the program.

"The F-22 modernization program is a concern to us," said Pentagon procurement chief Ashton Carter, who testified alongside Van Buren at the May 19 hearing.

[buglerbilly]

The big birds keep on flying

By Philip Ewing Wednesday, May 25th, 2011 2:37 pm



The Air Force may never send out big posters of cargo planes to its recruiters’ offices, but its fleet of airlifters, which keeps the military moving all around the world, is one of the Pentagon’s most useful tools. The emperor of that fleet is the behemoth C-5 Galaxy, which is to “airplane” what a supertanker is to “boat” — a concept taken almost to its logical extreme. After decades in service, though, many of the Air Force’s C-5s are worn out and they break a lot. Observers have noted in particular that C-5s rarely seem to be able to fly through Hawaii without requiring a day or so of repairs while their crews investigate the beaches.

The upgraded model, the C-5M, shouldn’t have that problem. Jim Grant, Lockheed Martin’s vice president for air mobility and special operations programs, told Buzz during Lockheed’s media day on Tuesday that the M variant has better than 90 percent reliability, and that its new engines, wings and other systems will make the Ms last out to 2040 — or beyond. Although it has plenty of C-17s and C-130s, the Air Force will always need the C-5s, Grant said, because of their chief virtues:

“This is a uniquely large airplane that has the ability to carry a lot of stuff over long ranges,” he said. “There is no airplane that can provide what it does.”

C-5Ms can fly more than 6,000 miles unrefueled, Grant said, which he said frees up tankers to top off combat aircraft or other cargo planes. The Air Force plans to upgrade 52 of its C-5s to Ms for about $90 million apiece; the cost to the Hawaii tourism trade is more difficult to calculate.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/05/25/the-big-birds-keep-on-flying/#ixzz1NQDofm74
DoDBuzz.com

[buglerbilly]

Poland To Host U.S. F-16 Rotations: Official

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Published: 27 May 2011 16:42

WARSAW - U.S. F-16 fighter jets and Hercules transport aircraft will be deployed in Poland on a rotating basis while a U.S. aviation detachment will be permanently stationed there, a senior U.S. adviser said May 27 as President Obama arrived in the country.

"We are going to announce tomorrow the conclusion of the agreement to establish an aviation detachment in Poland that will allow for our two air forces to cooperate in training the Poles to utilize the American aircraft that they purchased, F-16 and (Hercules) C-130," Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, a senior adviser for European affairs on the National Security Council told reporters. "What we will be doing is rotating trainers and aircraft to Poland so that they can become more interoperable with NATO. This will be a small permanent presence on the ground and a permanent presence that will be rotational."

Ahead of the visit, officials in Warsaw had expressed hope it would bring a deal for the permanent stationing of a U.S. Air Force technical ground crew at a Polish F-16 base, as well as training rotations of U.S. F-16 fighters and Hercules transport aircraft as of 2013.

Last year saw the first three rotations of unarmed training batteries of U.S. Patriot missiles in Poland, a move that also sparked Russia's ire. Four rotations are planned this year.

[buglerbilly]

Hostage To Lead U.S. Air Combat Command

By MARCUS WEISGERBER

Published: 27 May 2011 18:19

The U.S. Senate has quietly confirmed Lt. Gen. Michael Hostage as the next commander of Air Combat Command.

Hostage, the commander of U.S. Air Forces Central who oversees air operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, will take over for Gen. William Fraser, who has led ACC since September 2009.

The Senate Armed Services Committee received Hostage's nomination on May 16 and the full Senate confirmed the fighter pilot on May 26 by a voice vote, according to a notice in the congressional record. The notice did not list an assignment, only that Hostage will be "assigned to a position of importance and responsibility." However his assignment will be ACC, according to an Air Force official.

The Pentagon typically announces high-level, general officer promotions publicly. However, Hostage's name was not included on any general officer promotion lists released in May.

In addition, the Air Force usually announces pending nominations on the specific general officer's official biography on its website. Hostage's biography lists him as the commander of U.S. Air Forces Central in Southwest Asia.

Defense sources say Fraser, whom Hostage will replace, is being considered to lead U.S. Transportation Command, replacing Gen. Duncan McNabb, who is expected to retire. Some sources have said Fraser is considered a candidate to replace Gen. Norton Schwartz, the Air Force chief of staff, should Schwartz become the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The White House is expected to announce a new chairman and vice chairman as soon as next week.

Hostage spent the former part of his career flying F-15 and F-16 fighters, but has spent much of the last decade in important staff positions, including the senior military assistant to the secretary of the Air Force, director of requirements integration (J8) at U.S. Joint Forces Command and vice commander at Pacific Air Forces.

Air Force officials declined to comment on Hostage's assignment.

[buglerbilly]

F-22 Getting New Brain

Open Avionics Architecture To Ease Upgrades

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 30 May 2011

It has proved so difficult and expensive to upgrade the F-22 Raptor, whose stealthy body contains sensors and electronic brains, that the U.S. Air Force may take the unprecedented step of threading what amounts to a second central nervous system into a fighter jet.

By introducing an open architecture to one of the world's most tightly knit proprietary systems, service officials hope to make it much cheaper and easier to insert new technology - even gear developed for the F-35 Lightning II - into the stealthy air-superiority fighter.

"This jet has a very highly integrated avionics system. Because of that tight coupling and that highly integrated nature, it makes it very difficult, and we are highly reliant upon [Raptor makers] Lockheed Martin and Boeing to do any kinds of modifications to the jet," said David Weber, deputy director of the F-22 System Program Office (SPO) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.

Weber said the open-architecture effort is meant to allow the Air Force to open upgrade work to competition.

Today, he said, "the architecture is proprietary to Lockheed Martin, and we're kinda stuck with Lockheed Martin when we want to integrate something new."

Weber said the work is at such an early stage that the F-22 SPO has no guess how much it might cost.

This year, service officials plan to study the options, in part by issuing a request for information inviting contractors to suggest demonstration projects to help flesh out the alternatives.

"All of them have different ideas about how to go about doing this," Weber said.

In October through December, the service will award contracts to allow contractors to demonstrate ideas in a lab or flying testbed, said Col. John Williams, who runs the F-22 SPO's modernization office.

The SPO officials said Boeing and Lockheed would be welcome to bid on the demonstration contracts.

Lockheed, which had earlier proposed to essentially port the hardware and software architecture of the F-35 Lightning II into the Raptor, might respond to the Air Force solicitation with a similar proposal, said Jeff Babione, Lockheed's Raptor program manager. But Babione said the company might propose a different solution, depending on the service's requirements.

The Air Force will ultimately select one contractor to install the new architecture on its Raptors - ideally, said Weber, all 185 that will be built, less two losses.

"From our perspective, the fleet size is so small compared to where we wanted to be, our objective would be to make this applicable to all aircraft," he said.

The SPO deputy director said it may be deemed too costly to install the new architecture on the 34 oldest Raptors, which are currently used for training. Those planes are also not slated to get the Increment 3.2 upgrade, the next major group of hardware and software upgrades for the Raptor fleet.

But Weber noted that the new architecture might also make it cost-effective to bring those oldest Raptors up to the 3.2 standard.

If all goes well, development work could begin in earnest around 2014 as part of the development of Increment 3.2C, which is slated to begin installation in 2019 or 2020, he said.

Grafting On

As currently envisioned, the new network would be grafted onto the F-22's existing avionics, Weber said. The twin-engine jet's current network would continue to carry data between existing components, while upgraded ones would be linked by the new network. The data from both architectures would be translated and fused so that the jet continues to operate as a cohesive whole.

The installation of the new architecture might happen in one step, or it might proceed piece by piece, Williams said.

"Potentially, you could do it multiple times based on what you're trying to open up," he said. "You're opening up the [communication, navigation and identification]; maybe you're opening up the radar more, something like that. You may actually have multiple guys doing it, but it will be to a common standard."

As more systems are ported over to the new architecture, the older systems would wither away.

"Gradually, you'd have to start migrating some of the functions that we currently have in our core integrated processor away from the core integrated processor, so that everything doesn't flow through that piece," Williams said.

It may or may not be possible to migrate all of the Raptor's functionality.

"It depends on the degree we can open up the architecture," Weber said.

Lockheed's Babione said it might not be cost-effective to move everything to the new system.

The F-22 has received one upgrade - called Increment 2 - since it first arrived on Air Force flight lines in 2005. Those upgrades have added the capability to drop two 1,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions to the aircraft.

A planned upgrade, called Increment 3.1 and slated to begin this year, will add synthetic aperture radar mapping, the capability to carry eight Small Diameter Bombs, and other features.

In 2014, a software-only upgrade called Increment 3.2A will add electronic protection against jamming, better Link 16 receive capability and combat identification, and other improvements. In 2017, Increment 3.2B will add support for the plane's AIM-9X short-range and AIM-120D medium-range anti-air missiles, among many other upgrades.

In 2008, then-Pentagon acquisition chief John Young put the total cost of developing and installing Increment 3.1 and what became 3.2A and 3.2B at around $8 billion. The figure has likely gone up because the Air Force now plans to upgrade more F-22s.

Once the new architecture is installed, "if we want a new capability on the airplane, we can go out to industry with an RfI [request for information] and say, 'You all got good ideas; can you make it work with this architecture?'" Weber said.

The ultimate goal is to allow systems such as new radars to be "plug-and-play," as a printer might be to a desktop computer, he said.

This might allow the Raptor to use technology developed for the F-35 Lightning II without time-consuming and expensive integration work, Williams said.

Email: dmajumdar@defensenews.com.

[buglerbilly]

DATE:02/06/11

SOURCE:Flight International

USAF powers up for long-awaited UH-1N replacement

By Stephen Trimble

When three nuclear protestors broke into the E-9 Minuteman launch site in rural North Dakota on 20 June 2006, alarm bells rang all over the US Air Force.

Terrorists may have tried harder to gain access to the missile silo. But these trespassers were dressed as clowns, and merely spray-painted slogans around the site. Finished with their work, they waited patiently inside the launch site with hands raised until a helicopter-borne USAF security force arrived to arrest them.

Within the air force, however, the incident underscored the need to replace an ageing, under-powered fleet of 62 Bell UH-1Ns charged with responding to such alarms across vast distances.

The USAF's unguarded, remote missile sites dotting the Great Plains have always been vulnerable to potentially catastrophic security breaches, and the trio of harmless clowns only seemed to mock that risk.


© US Air Force
E-9 Minuteman nuclear launch silo, North Dakota

A more high-profile security lapse in 2007, when a Boeing B-52 inadvertently transported six nuclear-tipped missiles across the country, drove sweeping reforms of the USAF nuclear enterprise. But it has taken five more years and a controversy over acquisition strategy to address the UH-1N replacement issue.

On 27 May, the USAF finally launched a competitive bidding process for 93 helicopters, releasing a draft request for proposals under the common vertical lift support platform (CVLSP) programme.

Recognising the scale of the need if not the urgency, the USAF's draft requirements call for a very different kind of helicopter than the 4,700kg (10,400lb)-class UH-1N.

For the most challenging profile - responding to a security breach at a missile launch site - the aircraft with four crew members must transport a nine-member security force with all of their weapons and other equipment a minimum of 210km (115nm) and back, with multiple stops en route.

The five most likely helicopters competing for the CVLSP contract are at least 50% larger than the UH-1N, ranging from the 6,800kg AgustaWestland AW139 to the 22,700kg Boeing HH-47. Falling in between are the Bell UH-1Y, Sikorsky UH-60M and the Eurocopter EC725 offered by EADS North America.

The USAF's demands for increased performance may yet force some competitors to switch to an even larger aircraft.

"We don't see any requirement that we don't meet with a government off-the-shelf UH-60M aircraft," said Tim Healy, Sikorsky's director of air force business development. But he added: "It isn't a cakewalk, but we do meet all the requirements we see so far."


© US Air Force

Until now, the USAF has released only the aircraft requirements, but not the acquisition strategy. Until it divulges how the requirements will be scored in an evaluation, most competitors are keeping their options open.

AgustaWestland, Boeing and EADS confirmed interest in competing for the contract, but declined to specify which aircraft could be proposed. AgustaWestland has the option of choosing between the AW139 and larger AW101, while EADS is balancing potential bids based on Eurocopter's EC725 Cougar or AS532 Puma.

Boeing's only option appears to be the HH-47 Chinook, unless it teams with Bell to offer the V-22 tiltrotor. However, the USAF has not expressed any interest in a high-speed aircraft, with its draft requirement documents calling for a minimum speed of 135kt (250km/h). While 30% faster than the UH-1N, this is less than half the top speed of the V-22.

In addition, Bell seems concentrated on offering the UH-1Y for the CVLSP contract, describing the far more powerful and updated version of the Huey airframe as the "best value" in the competition.

The competitors' strategies are likely to take shape after 10 June, when the USAF is expected to reveal the acquisition strategy for CVLSP during a closed-door "industry day" meeting.

The competitive strategy has already survived an attempt within the USAF to at least consider awarding a sole-source deal to the UH-60M. In late March, USAF acquisition officials rejected the sole-source option in favour of a competitive bidding process.

[buglerbilly]

China, Russia Could Make U.S. Stealth Tech Obsolete

By David Axe June 7, 2011 | 7:00 am



It’s been a pillar of the U.S. military’s approach to high-tech warfare for decades. And now, it could become obsolete in just a few years.

Stealth technology — which today gives U.S. jets the nearly unparalleled ability to slip past hostile radar — may soon be unable to keep American aircraft cloaked. That’s the potentially startling conclusion of a new report from Barry Watts, a former member of the Pentagon’s crystal-ball-gazing Office of Net Assessment and current analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington.

“The advantages of stealth … may be eroded by advances in sensors and surface-to-air missile systems, especially for manned strike platforms operating inside defended airspace,” Watts cautions in his 43-page report The Maturing Revolution in Military Affairs (.pdf), published last week.

http://www.csbaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/2011.06.02-Maturing-Revolution-In-Military-Affairs1.pdf

That could come as a big shock to the U.S. Air Force, which has bet its future on radar-dodging technology, to the tune of half-a-trillion dollars over the next 30 years. The Navy, on the other hand, might have reason to say, “I told you so.”

That is, if Watts’ prediction comes true — and that’s a big “if,” the analyst admits.

“In recent years there has been speculation that ongoing advances in radar detection and tracking will, in the near future, obviate the ability of all-aspect, low-observable aircraft such as the B-2, F-22 and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, aka JSF, to survive inside denied airspace,” Watts writes, referring to America’s stealth bombers and fighter jets.

Stealth-killing advances include VHF and UHF radars being developed by Russia and China, and a “passive-detection” system devised by Czech researchers. The latter “uses radar, television, cellular phone and other available signals of opportunity reflected off stealthy aircraft to find and track them,” Watts explains.

These new detection systems could reverse a 30-year trend that has seen the U.S. Air Force gain an increasing advantage over enemy defenses. That phenomenon began with the introduction of the F-117 stealth fighter in the late 1980s, followed by the addition of the stealthy B-2 (pictured) in the ’90s and, more recently, the F-22.

So far, the Air Force has only ever fielded a few hundred stealth aircraft, requiring it to constantly upgrade some nonstealthy fighters. But the flying branch plans to purchase more than 1,700 F-35s (at more than $100 million a pop) from Lockheed Martin in coming decades, plus up to 100 new stealth bombers. In that sense, the stealth era is only now truly dawning — just as effective counter-measures are nearly ready, Watts points out.

In that sense, the Air Force’s stealth gamble could turn into very, very long odds.

Comparatively, the Navy has played it safe. At the same time the Air Force was investing its research and development dollars in stealth, the Navy has taken a different approach to defeating enemy defenses. Where the Air Force plans to slip past radars, the Navy means to jam them with electronic noisemakers or destroy them with radar-seeking missiles. That’s why the only radar-killing planes in the Pentagon inventory belong to the Navy — and why, until the forthcoming F-35C, the Navy has never bought a stealth fighter.

Nowhere is that philosophical difference more apparent than in the Pentagon’s on-again, off-again effort to develop jet-powered killer drones. The Navy’s X-47 drone, built by Northrop, is minimally stealthy. Boeing’s Phantom Ray, intended mostly for Air Force programs, is arguably as stealthy as an F-35 in certain scenarios.

There’s still a chance the Air Force’s bet on stealth could pay off, Watts writes. That largely depends on two capabilities planned for the F-35.

First, there’s “the JSF’s sensor suite and computational power,” which Watts explains “can be easily upgraded over time due to the plane’s open avionics architecture, giv the F-35 an ability to adjust its flight path in real time in response to pop-up threats, something neither the F-117 nor the B-2 have been able to do.”

Second, the F-35’s radar, a so-called “electronically scanned array,” could in theory be used to jam an enemy radar or even slip malicious software code into its control system.

Neither of these capabilities is actually a form of stealth, per se. Rather, they would complement the F-35’s ability to absorb or deflect radar waves. Described uncharitably, the Air Force has had to add nonstealthy skills to its stealth fighters, just to help them survive.

Watts doesn’t address one other way the Air Force could preserve its stealth advantage: by speeding up the development of drone aircraft — which, by virtue of their smaller size, have the potential to be much stealthier than any manned aircraft.

It’s also worth noting that America’s biggest rivals don’t doubt the continuing relevance of stealthy planes. Russia and China have both unveiled new stealth-fighter prototypes in the last two years.

The way Watts describes it, the “end of stealth” is just one of the many big changes that could occur in near-future warfare — big emphasis on “could.” “The honest answer to the question about how fundamentally war’s conduct will change — and how soon — remains: It depends.”

[I]Photo: B-2 stealth bomber (U.S. Air Force)

[buglerbilly]

USAF selects Northrop Grumman for JMPS Framework contract

June 08, 2011

Northrop Grumman Corporation has been awarded a $19 million contract from the US Air Force to enhance and maintain the Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS) Framework.

The JMPS Framework comprises the core elements and functions for the JMPS family of scalable, extensible and configurable tools and decision aids that automate planning for sensor, weapon or aircraft missions. These missions range from day-to-day training and proficiency flying to peacetime operational/exercise sorties and complex combat scenarios.

The delivery order was awarded under the Mission Planning Enterprise Contract (MPEC) II from the Electronic Systems Center, Hanscom Air Force Base, Mass. Northrop Grumman will update and improve the JMPS Framework by architecting a shared mapping capability to eliminate multiple, independent mapping products. The company will modernize the software to optimize computing resources, provide a more enhanced plug-in capability for components and applications and enable modular installations. Northrop Grumman will also provide lifecycle support for fielded versions of the framework.

Northrop Grumman continues its role as a leader in the development of advanced mission planning systems with this delivery order, the second MPEC II award this year. The company's open-architecture approach to the JMPS offers third-party integrators a robust capability to reconfigure, substitute and extend application functionality. This has enabled common mission planning across services, platforms, weapons and sensors.

"Our history with JMPS goes back to the original architecture of the system, which gives us the insight into the 'what' and 'why' that is critical to making this effort a success," said Mike Twyman, vice president of integrated command, control, communications and intelligence systems for Northrop Grumman Information Systems. "Our innovative approach assures the framework will serve the warfighter well into the future while reducing the government's total ownership cost."

Under the direction of the Electronic Systems Center, Northrop Grumman's efforts will simplify and reduce product maintenance, improve mission planning processing runtime and reliability and facilitate the integration and test of new applications.

The Northrop Grumman team includes DCS Corp., Alexandria, Va.; Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho; and The Software Revolution Inc., Kirkland, Wash.

Source: Northrop Grumman

[buglerbilly]

DATE:08/06/11

SOURCE:Flight International

Boeing anticipates T-X delay, promotes new jet to replace T-38

By Stephen Trimble

Boeing executives expect the US Air Force to delay replacing the Northrop T-38C Talon by several years as the company continues to promote the costlier option of developing a new jet trainer.

On 7 June, Boeing Phantom Works president Darryl Davis opened discussion on the T-X programme, saying he "understands" budget pressures have already forced USAF officials to delay a T-38 replacement by several years.

But Boeing Military Aircraft president Chris Chadwick softened that message, saying he "can see [T-X] slipping to the right a year or two" as part of broader budget pressures.

Global Support Systems president Tony Parasida hedged his predictions, however. "Our expectation is that it will slide out," he said. But he declined to rule out other possibilities, adding: "I'm banking on all options."

Boeing's gloomy outlook for launching the T-X programme on schedule within the next two years came as a surprise to the USAF and at least one competitor. Since 2008, the Air Education and Training Command (AETC), which operates the T-38C fleet, has been committed to fielding the first operational T-X jet in fiscal year 2017.


© US Air Force
The Air Education and Training Command may have to fly on its aged T-38C Talons

"The air force has not, at this point, delayed T-X [initial operational capability]," AETC said when asked for a response. It said it is continuing with its budgeting process to have the IOC of T-X in FY2017.

BAE Systems is preparing to offer an off-the-shelf Hawk advanced jet training system and is unaware of any delay.

"We are talking to the customer regularly and we are obviously aware of budget pressures, but [there's] no suggestion of that sort of delay at this time," BAE said.

The competitive field also includes the Lockheed Martin/Korea Aerospace Industries T-50 Golden Eagle and the Alenia Aermacchi M-346, rebranded for the USAF bid as the T-100.

Boeing has kept its ideas for a clean-sheet design a closely guarded secret, but it is clear the company has been working on concepts for at least two years.

On 7 June, a group of journalists touring a Boeing simulation facility glimpsed a digital image of a new single-engined jet wearing the white-on-grey colours of AETC.

An icon on a control station screen for a T-X simulator showed a new concept for a two-seat jet with shallow V-tails similar to the Northrop YF-23 prototype. The simulation at the time presented a scenario based at Randolph AFB, Texas - the headquarters of the command acquiring the T-38 replacement.

The icon represented a notional aircraft's track on a simulator operator's control screen, emulating the movements commanded by the "pilot" flying the jet in a simulated cockpit.

Boeing officials denied that the image represented a concept for a clean-sheet T-X design, but did not explain how the image was created. No photographs were allowed inside the facility, and Boeing declined requests to release a picture of the aircraft concept.

[buglerbilly]

Air Force funds future ICBM studies

Posted 6/8/2011 Updated 6/8/2011

by Vicki Stein
Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs



6/8/2011 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- The first of several studies to determine the best options for maintaining or replacing the nation's 450 Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile weapons systems after 2030 is underway, Air Force officials said here recently.

"The Air Force is strongly committed to the ground-based leg of the nation's nuclear triad and we're taking all actions appropriate -- the analysis, the assessment, the planning -- for this capability, in 2030 and beyond," said Maj. Gen. William Chambers, the assistant chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration.

As part of that commitment, the Air Force is making a $28 billion investment in nuclear deterrence operations across the Future Years Defense Program, the general said in statements provided to the House and Senate Armed Services Committee's Strategic Forces Subcommittees April 5 and 6.

That investment and planned studies will ensure that the Air Force retains or procures systems and capabilities that are best for our nation's strategic deterrence, he said. Options for a new GBSD capability, he added, range from upgrading the current ICBM force to the possibility of a new system.

"Although a decision on a follow-on ICBM is not needed for several years, the Nuclear Posture Review recognized the need for studies to inform a decision on ground-based strategic deterrence beyond 2030," he said, explaining that the results of these studies will inform and help clarify the costs and benefits of a follow-on ground-based strategic deterrent capability.

Lt. Gen. James Kowalski, the commander of Air Force Global Strike Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee April 6 that the command is working with headquarters Air Force on the capabilities-based assessment of a ground based strategic deterrent. The $1 million initial study, internally funded by AFGSC, is expected to be complete by July 2011 and will establish the requirements baseline for the missile's desired speed, range, payload capacity and other requirements.

During FY12, Air Force officials are planning to internally source funds in the amount of $4.6 million to develop the Analysis of Alternatives study guidance and use the guidance to build the AOA study plan, officials said. This funding will also fund initial pre-AOA concept characterization and technical descriptions.

These efforts will produce a recommendation regarding the best ICBM follow-on options from a broad range of alternatives -- from full replacement to sustainment of the current ICBM beyond 2030.

Approximately $26 million will be required, in total, during FY12-14 to complete the entire Materiel Solutions Analysis phase, which includes the AOA and other activities leading to the initial acquisition milestone and a Program of Record.

While Air Force officials are conducting these studies, the Minuteman III ICBM, first deployed in the 1960s continues to undergo Life Extension Programs to ensure the weapon system is viable through 2030 as mandated by Congress.

Minuteman III ICBMs are located at missile wings headquartered at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyo., Malmstrom AFB, Mont. and Minot AFB, N.D.

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

It's That Radar Again

Posted by Bill Sweetman at 6/9/2011 11:14 AM CDT



Boeing's pre-Paris media tour reached Seattle Wednesday, with a series of briefings that focused on the Navy's P-8A Poseidon multi-role maritime aircraft - and its planned derivatives.

On the surface, Boeing is optimistic, listing opportunities to sell 150-plus more aircraft based on the 737 platform - comprising straightforward P-8s, versions of that design and 737 Airborne Early Warning & Control aircraft. (The latter, based on Australia's Wedgetail, is a rather separate case because it will continue to be based on an airframe off the 737 line, while P-8As are built as such from the ground up.) However, there are a couple of challenges.

The first is that the global intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance market is trending smaller. Only India has bought a P-8-class aircraft in recent years, while ATR has been doing a small but lively business in CN-235 maritime developments. On the AEW scene, most current competitions are being fought by the Saab EriEye and Israel Aerospace Industries' Gulfstream 550-based system.

Boeing's second challenge is that it needs to exploit the 737-base market quickly because - in the not too distant future - the 737 itself will be either drastically modernized or replaced, reducing a key advantage: the fact that the military 737s share a production and supply base with hundreds of 737s per year.

This explains why Boeing is making an aggressive pitch to the USAF to buy P-8A Airborne Ground Surveillance (AGS) variants rather than extending the life of its Northrop Grumman E-8A Joint STARS fleet. The USAF has an analysis of alternatives under way, with Northrop Grumman pushing a re-engined Joint STARS with a new radar antenna.

Boeing argues that P-8A AGS would have lower nonrecurring costs as well as being less expensive to operate and starting with a zero-life airframe. (The Joint STARS airframes date to the late 1960s. having been modified from civil 707-320Cs.) Boeing argues that because of the age of the airframe and other factors, updating the E-8A would involve a $10-$15 billion non-recurring cost (a number that Northrop Grumman energetically disputes.)

The Boeing AGS proposal has its quirks. The company is proposing a minimum-change version of the P-8A - heavily reinforced low-altitude structure, weapons bay and pylons, maritime radar and all. (The biggest change would be the removal of the sonobuoy launchers.) Boeing argues that a weapons capability on the AGS would be useful, but it would be a change to USAF doctrine.

The oddest feature of the proposal, though, is that the main surveillance radar is unnamed, even though it is now clear what it is most likely to be. Company officials in Seattle Wednesday finally confirmed what we concluded here four years ago: That the P-8A was designed from the outset to carry a version of the then-classified Raytheon APS-149 Littoral Surveillance Radar System (LSRS), now in service on Navy P-3 Orions. That was why Boeing switched, late in the proposal stage, to a 737-800 fuselage with an aft weapon bay, and that is also why the design has an anomalous pair of hardpoints under the forward fuselage.

The Navy is continuing to fund an updated version of the LSRS, the Advanced Airborne Sensor, with the P-8A as the intended platform. The AGS solution is therefore well in hand, although the schedule remains sensitive. The USAF could in theory select a different radar, but that would be costly.

For the USAF, therefore, P-8A AGS means accepting a Navy solution that would logically be blended into the Navy infrastructure. The Navy, meanwhile, is funding an AGS role for its own P-8As, but has no plans to add resources to the fleet to take on the joint-service support mission. Added to this is the question of where the USAF would find the money for a new AGS platform, and whether it wants to replace Joint STARS one-for-one at all.

[buglerbilly]

DATE:09/06/11

SOURCE:Flight International

Boeing warns Joint STARS upgrades may cost $10-$15 billion

By Stephen Trimble

Boeing has escalated a campaign to persuade the US Air Force to replace the Northrop Grumman E-8C joint surveillance target attack radar system (Joint STARS), warning that actual costs to modernise the 707-based surveillance fleet may exceed official estimates by up to five times.

Boeing's analysis of the cost to upgrade the E-8C with an active electronically scanned array (AESA) sensor, new engines, wide-band communications, modern avionics and a self-protection system, ranges between $10-$15 billion, said Egan Greensteing, a Boeing senior manager for business development.

That number compares to a $2.9 billion estimate developed jointly by the USAF and Northrop, which includes a "radar technology refresh", a communication network upgrade, a self-defence suite and cheek radar arrays.

"Any other figure besides the ones I have previously discussed, I can't validate," Northrop said in a statement.

The cost debate could figure prominently as the USAF nears the end of a wide-ranging, 18-month study in September. That analysis of alternatives will define how the USAF invests in the ability to track moving objects on the ground from the air - the key function of the Joint STARS APY-7 radar.

Since the first of 17 Joint STARS aircraft became operational in January 1991, however, radar technology has dramatically changed.

The US Navy has invested heavily in programmes to convert a portion of its maritime patrol fleet into armed overland surveillance platforms to rival the USAF's Joint STARS programme.

A small number of Lockheed P-3C Orions have been deployed with an AESA-based Raytheon littoral surveillance radar system (LSRS). Meanwhile, the USN is developing a new version of that sensor - the Raytheon advanced airborne sensor (AAS) - for the Boeing P-8A Poseidon.

In February 2010, Boeing unveiled a proposal to develop an airborne ground surveillance (AGS) variant of the P-8A to replace the Joint STARS fleet.


©Boeing

Boeing estimates the full price to develop and deliver 17 P-8A AGS aircraft is $5.5 billion. Asked if the company is willing to commit to a fixed-price contract based on that figure, Greenstein replied it was too premature in the absence of details of the USAF requirements.

The P-8A would also carry a new, AESA-based sensor that would "leverage" the USN's investment in the AAS programme, Greenstein said.

Along with the P-8A's ability to carry weapons, the AESA radar proposal may set Boeing's proposal apart from the E-8C modernisation plan. It is possible the "radar technology refresh" described in Northrop's statement refers to upgrading the APY-7, rather than installing an AESA-based sensor.

[buglerbilly]

Acquisition Board To Review USAF Options on T-38

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 10 Jun 2011 14:00

The U.S. Air Force has accepted the results of an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) looking at options to replace the service's geriatric fleet of T-38 Talon jet trainers. The next step is for the AoA to be reviewed by a Defense Acquisition Board in the coming months, a service official said.

"Air Education and Training Command (AETC) and [Headquarters] USAF have validated the AoA," Air Force spokesman Maj. Rosaire Bushey said in an emailed statement. "AETC and the Aeronautical Systems Center are now preparing for a Defense Acquisition Board review later this summer."

However, the Air Force won't release the study because it contains propriety data from would-be contractors.

Air Force officials couldn't immediately comment on what course of action the T-X AoA recommended. However, options are known to include replacing the T-38 with a new aircraft, doing further upgrade work or even doing nothing.

Potential contractors include BAE Systems with a version of their venerable Hawk jet trainer, Lockheed Martin/Korean Aerospace with their T-50 Golden Eagle aircraft, and Alenia with their T-100 jet. Northrop, which built the T-38, might also have an offering, as might Boeing.

[buglerbilly]

DATE:16/06/11

SOURCE:Flight International

F-22 grounding continues as oxygen safety probe widens

By Stephen Trimble



More than six weeks after the US Air Force indefinitely grounded all Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptors, the scope of the safety investigation has widened beyond the Honeywell-supplied onboard oxygen generating system (OBOGS).

Although internally described as the "OBOGS safety investigation", the probe launched after the 3 May safety stand-down of the F-22A fleet is "not limited" to that particular system, Air Combat Command (ACC) said in emailed responses to questions.

"We are still working to pinpoint the exact nature of the problem," the ACC said. "It is premature to definitely link the current issues to the OBOGS system."

The stand-down was originally linked to five reports by F-22 pilots of potential oxygen system malfunctions, including one reported instance when an F-22 scraped treetops on final approach. The pilot could not remember the incident after landing, exhibiting a classic symptom of hypoxia.

The OBOGS is not the only device involved in the supply of oxygen to the pilot. Wedged into a space behind and slightly below the pilot's seat, it uses a molecular sieve to filter pressurised air diverted from the engine compressor section into pure oxygen.

In between the OBOGS and an F-22 pilot's lungs, the filtered oxygen passes through two major components - the MBU-22P oxygen mask and the breathing regulator/anti-g (BRAG) valve. The latter "ensures safe delivery of oxygen to the pilot" through the face mask, according to a fact sheet published by the USAF human systems integration office.

"The BRAG is fast-acting due to the manoeuverability of the aircraft and [is] compatible with the existing upper and lower g-garments, which keeps blood in the upper portions of the body during aircraft manoeuvres," the fact sheet added.

The USAF investigation is also comparing the F-22's life support system with other strike aircraft in its fleet, including the Lockheed F-35A Lightning II, Fairchild Republic A-10, Boeing F-15, Lockheed F-16 and Hawker Beechcraft T-6A, the ACC said.

The review is aimed at casting a "broad net for comparison", the command added.

Complaints about the F-22's OBOGS equipment had not surfaced until recently. In January, the ACC ordered the fleet to remain below a service ceiling of 25,000ft (7,620m). The order came two months after an F-22 crashed near Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. That accident, in which the pilot was killed, is under investigation and has not been linked to the oxygen system concerns.

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Services Discuss Combining Rivet Joint and EP-3 into an EP-8

Posted by David A. Fulghum at 6/17/2011 11:47 AM CDT

The fact that Boeing gets more orders has nothing to do with this now does it?!! Boeing has been actively & heavily pushing the idea of P-8 being used in more tasks for the last 4-6 weeks.................

The Pentagon is being squeezed for savings which is pushing the U.S. Navy and Air Force to combine their airborne communications and electronic intelligence gathering operation into a single airframe and a much closer operational relationship, says the Chief of Naval Operations.

This consolidation process has already shifted the standoff jamming and electronic attack mission to the Navy’s EA-18G electronic attack aircraft. The Growler is already a veteran of campaigns in Afghanistan and Libya.

Now the Pentagon’s small force of large, special-missions aircraft, in particular the Air Force’s RC-135 Rivet Joint and the Navy’s EP-3E signals intelligence aircraft, is aging itself out of operational use and will have to be replaced. The Navy wants to upgrade its airborne communications and signals intelligence and information warfare capabilities with an EP-8 derivative of its P-8 anti-submarine aircraft and its Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) version of the Air Force’s Global Hawk unmanned aircraft system.

In fact the two services have already embraced integration of their intelligence gathering Global Hawk fleets. So are the manned aircraft next?

“Oh I think so,” says Adm. Gary Roughhead, chief of naval operations during a discussion of the Navy’s future at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). “Those [consolidation and capability comparisons] are exactly the activities we are engaging in. We look at what we’re trying to sense, and how we best provide the capability.

“For example, Gen [Norton] Schwartz [Air Force chief of staff] and I are both of a mind that with UAVs, it really doesn’t matter what’s painted on the side of the fuselage,” he says. “It’s really the sensor. That’s where we have to go.”

For a common, manned, fixed-wing replacement program, the EP-8, “could be an option,“ Roughhead says. However, the two service chiefs “have not gotten into the very detailed discussions on what it would be. We’re still looking at how we want to shape [the capability], but the Air Force is part of that discussion. At some point the two services will come to grips with [the choices].

There is no appetite to take on any new program starts, however. If it doesn’t already exist, there’s going to be no desire to create a new program of record because of the increasingly difficult acquisition process and resulting increased cost of programs.

The Navy’s decisions also are being driven by the anticipated retirement of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier in the 2020s. Roughhead says the Navy’s decisions on aviation programs will be largely driven by manned and unmanned aircraft that can be operated from aircraft carriers in order to overcome anti-access and denial of access capabilities fielded by countries around the world, and not just China.

[buglerbilly]

Eurocopter More Tentative On CVLSP Bid

Jun 20, 2011

By Amy Butler abutler@aviationweek.com
PARIS

Eurocopter, the EADS helicopter business, is prioritizing its potential bid for the U.S. Army Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) program over what could be an iffy chance at winning the forthcoming U.S. Air Force Common Vertical Lift Support Program (CVLSP), according to Dominique Maudet, executive vice president for global business and services.

This slightly more conservative position on CVLSP prospects comes after EADS’ failed bid for the U.S. Air Force’s aerial tanker program.

Through its North American unit, Eurocopter plans to propose a modified version of the UH-72A for the Army program. Maudet says a request for proposals is expected in the fall. This program could be worth more than $5 billion for more than 500 helicopters, says Sean O’Keefe, EADS North America CEO. He argues that a derivative of the Lakota is more cost-effective than continuing to upgrade the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior, a Bell product.

The U.S. already has spent about $10.8 million per unit on the existing Kiowa fleet, and another $14.4 million would need to be spent to fully upgrade that fleet to accomplish the AAS mission, O’Keefe says. By contrast, he estimates that the price tag for a Lakota-based AAS would be about $12.9 million, excluding government-furnished equipment.

The company is funding three prototypes, the first of which is designed to demonstrate the 6,000 ft./95C “high/hot” performance outlined in the program. Its first flight was in December. The second, which flew first in April, is outfitted with all of the hard points and equipment needed to support weaponization, O’Keefe says. The final aircraft is in Europe conducting a series of systems integration tests.

The Air Force’s CVLSP program would replace the Hueys now conducting two missions: executive lift from Andrews AFB, Md., and nuclear convoy support in the ICBM fields in the northern United States.

“It is a lot of investment to go for a U.S. campaign,” Maudet said June 18 during a series of media briefings in advance of the Paris air show. “AAS is a top priority for us. We will only go if CVLSP makes sense, which we are not sure of.”

The Air Force is expected to release a draft request for proposals for the CVLSP by late July, O’Keefe says.

[buglerbilly]

AF Academy Gets Training Planes With Parachutes

June 20, 2011

The Gazette, Colorado Springs,Colo.



The Air Force Academy is getting a new fleet of training planes this year that will take the crunch out of a crash.

The Cirrus Aircraft T-53A has something that no other Air Force plane carries: A built-in parachute that can allow the entire aircraft to float to earth in an emergency.

Air Force instructors say they're not planning on trying out the new technology anytime soon, but it will provide an extra measure of safety for cadets as they take their first flights.

"Now you have the option of pulling the parachute if you need to," said Lt. Col. Brad Oliver, with the academy's 557th Flying Training Squadron.

The extra safety isn't cheap. Each single-engine T-53A costs about $250,000 -- nearly $10,000 for every foot of its length. The academy is buying 25 of the aircraft for $6.1 million to replace a leased trainer fleet of Diamond Aircraft DA-40s.

The new planes have a digital cockpit, with computer screens giving instrument readings. Oliver said the plane is slightly more powerful than the old trainers.

The two-seater has room for an instructor and a student, and can cruise at a top speed of 178 mph with a range of nearly 700 miles.

The academy has leased trainer planes since grounding the ill-fated T-3A Firefly in the late 1990s.

From 1995 to 1997, the Firefly crashed three times in Colorado Springs, killing three cadets and three instructor pilots.

The first of the new training planes will be accepted into the academy's fleet in a Monday ceremony.

But it will be months before cadets climb in the cockpit. In the coming months, test pilots from Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., will come to the academy to discern the capabilities of the new trainer. Those test flights will determine the plane's flight envelope -- a parameter within which the plane can be safely flown.

Then, a training program for cadets using the new aircraft will be developed. Academy instructors say they're already translating the plane's civilian manuals into Air Force guides and checklists.

The academy expects to begin using the planes for training purposes in January, with the whole fleet ready for cadets next summer.

Oliver said the training squadron now gives more than 500 cadets per year their first nine flights.

With a larger fleet of training planes, the academy hopes to expand the training to include more than 700 cadets annually.

© Copyright 2011 The Gazette, Colorado Springs,Colo..

[buglerbilly]

USAF Acquisition Chief Asks Industry For Help

Jun 22, 2011

By Amy Butler abutler@aviationweek.com
LE BOURGET



U.S. Air Force acquisition chief David Van Buren is asking industry for help in finding ways to both reduce cycle times for deliveries of weapon systems and cut costs to the government.

This includes a plea for industry to inform the government of cost/benefit trades in forthcoming procurements. Ultimately, a broader dialogue is needed between the Air Force and its contractors. This includes not blindly following the requirements of a solicitation if the contractor knows a better way to fill it, he says.

Van Buren, who spoke at a June 21 event here hosted by Accenture, says he is “concerned” about profitability in the defense business. But he argues that companies can maintain profits while also reducing price to the customer. He says he is open to suggestions on how to improve the situation, especially as the White House embarks on a comprehensive review of programs and costs in search of $400 billion to slice from security spending by 2020, with the Pentagon’s the largest stakeholder.

After studying the root causes of cost growth on some Air Force programs, Van Buren says he found that engineering change proposals were not largely to blame for cost growth. More growth was found as result of the use of cost-plus contracts, in which the government pays the cost of the item no matter the price.

Thus, the government has begun using more fixed-price contracts with incentive structures. “The business relationship is not what it should be,” Van Buren says.

This contracting mechanism was used in the $1.5 billion deal with Boeing to develop the KC-46A tanker.

While adjusting the business relationship with industry, Van Buren also is pushing for a stronger link between government R&D efforts and industry’s internal R&D to develop enabling technologies that will eventually feed programs of the future. It is likely the budget crunch will affect the available funding for government research, and several industry officials acknowledge this will drive companies to take more risks in funding their own projects.

KC-46A Boeing concept

[buglerbilly]

DATE:22/06/11

SOURCE:Flight Daily News

PARIS: USAF’s irregular warfare strategy under new attack

By Stephen Trimble

US lawmakers are threatening to wipe out most of a three-year investment by the US Air Force to stand up a small corps of conventional aircraft and flight crews dedicated to irregular warfare missions.

Two of the three pillars of the USAF's irregular warfare strategy could be cancelled or transferred to the US Army if amendments passed on 17 November to the Senate's version of the defence authorisation bill make it into law.

One amendment would eliminate funding to launch the light attack armed reconnaissance fleet next year. The LAAR role is the subject of an intense, ongoing competition between the Hawker Beechcraft/Lockheed Martin AT-6 and the Embraer/Sierra Nevada EMB-314 Super Tucano.

Another amendment passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee would require the air force to transfer the MC-12W Liberty fleet to the army.

Both the LAAR and Project Liberty programmes have been the most visible centrepieces of the USAF's effort to be more responsive to counter-insurgency requirements in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere.

The Senate panel left untouched the third pillar of the USAF irregular warfare strategy - a new fleet of "light lift" aircraft. Last month, the USAF selected the Cessna 208 Caravan for the role.

However, the proposals affecting the LAAR and Project Liberty are the latest attempts to diminish the scale and funding of the USAF's original irregular warfare strategy.

In 2009, the USAF envisioned standing up a new force of 100 light strike fighters and at least 60 light lift aircraft, along with more than 40 MC-12s for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

These requirements were gradually reduced to acquiring a single squadron each of light strike and light lift aircraft.

[buglerbilly]

More Upgrades Seen for USAF F-16s

Posted by Bradley Peniston | June 23rd, 2011 | Paris Air Show 2011


A U.S. Air Force F-16 sits on the tarmac at the 2011 Paris Air Show / Defense News photo by Bradley Peniston

By DAVE MAJUMDAR • PARIS — The F-35′s delayed arrival means the U.S. Air Force will likely need to upgrade its long-serving F-16s, which make up half the service’s fighter fleet.

Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at the Teal Group, Fairfax, Va., said the Air Force will “look closely at [Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA)] radar upgrades beyond the current (V)9 program, but also ongoing engine power and reliability improvements, [electronic warfare] and cockpit mods, and of course any necessary structural work for aging airframes.”

Lockheed Martin, which builds the aircraft, has some ideas as to what the service needs to do to keep the Fighting Falcon in fighting trim into the 2030s.

The jet has to have its structural life extended from the standard 8,000 hours to between 10,000 and 12,000 hours. Certain parts of the structure will have to be modified, said Bill McHenry, Lockheed’s F-16 business development chief.

Currently, the Air Force is evaluating the structural life left in its newer Block 40 and 50 F-16s, McHenry said. Those aircraft might have life left in them past 8,000 hours because they have been flown in relatively benign configurations, he said.

The older Block 25s and 30s have been flown hard in configurations that are not conducive to extended airframe life; for example, carrying asymmetrical loads.

McHenry said retrofitting structural upgrades should not be a problem. The key to keeping the aircraft relevant is the avionics.

McHenry said that AESA radars from Raytheon and Northrop Grumman are likely to have to compete to win a contract to replace the existing radar.

Further consideration is being given to adding the Multi-function Advanced Data-Link (MADL) from the F-35 on to the F-16, which would allow the aircraft to be interoperable with fifth-generation stealth fighters. Such upgrades should be fairly simple because of the F-16’s hardware architecture, McHenry said. “We’re very proud of the fact that we offer our customers options,” he said.

[buglerbilly]

DATE:07/07/11

SOURCE:Flight International

Cirrus SR20 wins US Air Force academy award

By Stephen Trimble

Cirrus Aircraft will deliver 25 SR20 trainers to the US Air Force academy under a $6.1 million contract to support a revived flight instruction course.

The aircraft, redesignated as T-53As, will be delivered to the academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado, from the third quarter of this year, with the rest to follow through 2012.

The new aircraft will replace a fleet of Cessna 172s - T-41C Mescalaros in USAF colours - that have been in service at the academy since 1968. It briefly cancelled the powered flight course in its curriculum in 2006, but it was revived in 2008.

Two years later, the Air Education and Training Command launched the T-41 replacement programme.




Both images © Cirrus Aircraft

Cirrus will equip the T-53A with the airframe parachute system, airbag seatbelts, integrated fuselage roll cage and the Cirrus Perspective by Garmin avionics suite.

The academy appreciated that students can now deploy the parachute installed on board the SR-20 in the event of an emergency, Lt Col Brad Oliver, of its 557th Flying Training Sqn, said.

[buglerbilly]

DATE:07/07/11

SOURCE:Flight International

USAF requests information on F-16 AESA upgrade

By Stephen Trimble

The US Air Force has taken the first public step towards upgrading hundreds of Lockheed Martin F-16s with active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars.

The Aeronautical Systems Center (ASC) published a six-page request for information in late June, asking suppliers for information about options for upgrading between 300 and 600 later-model F-16s from 2017.

The air force excluded foreign suppliers because of security concerns, in a move which is likely to limit its options to the Northrop Grumman scaleable agile beam radar and Raytheon advanced combat radar (RACR).

Both systems have been in development for at least three years in anticipation of USAF's interest.

However, the service has also left the door open to possibly buying an all-new AESA radar to replace the Northrop APG-68(V)1 on F-16 Block 40/42s and APG-68(V)5 on Block 50/52s.


© Rex Features

The air force "prefers an 'off-the-shelf' solution", the ASC notice says, but "a new system design shall not be precluded, if that radar system can be accomplished within the objective time parameters".

Jim Hvizd, Raytheon vice-president of international strategy and business development, said the company had been anticipating such a request "at some point".

"This is the opening round of the services starting the dialogue with industry," Hvizd said.

Northrop officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The numbers of F-16s involved in the proposed radar modernisation programme are "not a surprise", Hvizd said, but Raytheon considers them a starting point for discussion, and could be reduced.

The actual number is likely be driven by two factors, he said. First, the air force has to determine how many F-16s will survive beyond 2017. Earlier this year, the service commissioned Lockheed to launch a lifecycle fatigue test on an F-16.

Initial results will not be available for two more years, and only then will the USAF understand how many airframes are capable of enduring, and for how long.

The other issue that will drive the numbers of AESA retrofit orders is budget-related.

"There are still big questions about funding," Hvizd said. "I can't speculate, but we're all a little nervous."

Meanwhile, Raytheon's focus has turned towards possible international customers, including some buyers that do not have the luxury of waiting several years for the USAF to decide, he said.

Raytheon has previously received clearance to market its RACR design to Greece and South Korea.

Meanwhile, eastern European countries, such as Poland, Bulgaria and Romania, are discussing a joint modernisation programme if used F-16 sales are approved by the US government to the latter two countries, Hvizd said.

[buglerbilly]

Boeing Awarded $99.5M Contract to Upgrade US Air Force B-1B Bomber

Modifications will improve Lancer’s situational awareness, communications

LONG BEACH, Calif., July 5, 2011 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] today announced it has been awarded a $99.5 million contract by the U.S. Air Force to integrate three major modifications on the B-1 Lancer bomber fleet. This contract is for the first lot of modification kits of a planned multi-lot production contract to upgrade the service’s B-1s.

The upgrades include delivery of kits with parts for the Vertical Situation Display Unit in the forward cockpit and for the Fully Integrated Data Link and the Central Integrated Test System in the aft cockpit. All three programs will be installed concurrently from late 2012 through 2019 in a single modification called the Integrated Battle Station.

“The Integrated Battle Station upgrades will provide B-1 bomber aircrews with a higher level of situational awareness and a faster secure digital communication link,” said Rick Greenwell, B-1 program director for Boeing. “This will enable the aircrews to perform at an even more effective level and will make the B-1 cockpit more reliable and supportable. Combining the separate upgrades into one production kit will enable us to deliver a more affordable upgraded aircraft to our customer in a timelier manner.”

The three upgrades are in various stages of final ground and flight tests in preparation for installation on the B-1 Lancer bomber fleet.

The Vertical Situation Display Unit upgrades the B-1’s forward cockpit by replacing two unsupportable, monochrome pilot and co-pilot displays with four multi-functional color displays, giving the pilots more situational awareness data in a user-friendly format.

The B-1 Fully Integrated Data Link will give the aft cockpit new digital avionics including a Link 16 data link, which adds line-of-sight capability to the B-1's existing beyond line-of-sight Joint Range Extension Applications Protocol (JREAP) data link, and integrates the JREAP data onto new, full-color displays with intuitive symbols and moving maps.

The Central Integrated Test System adds a new color display in the aft cockpit and replaces an obsolete computer that continuously monitors the aircraft’s performance. It also is used by ground support personnel to identify and troubleshoot B-1 system anomalies.

A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is one of the world's largest defense, space and security businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions, and the world’s largest and most versatile manufacturer of military aircraft. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is a $32 billion business with 65,000 employees worldwide. Follow us on Twitter: @BoeingDefense.

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

F-15C Combines AESA and Sniper For Visual Nightime ID

Posted by David A. Fulghum at 7/8/2011 9:36 AM CDT

Small signature UAVs, stealthy cruise missiles, ultra-lights and other small asymmetric airborne weapons are giving U.S. homeland defense planners nightmares.

But a back-of-the-cocktail-napkin drawing has produced a low-cost, smart-phone-like app for quickly and cheaply integrating new podded sensors to combat aircraft.

In fact, the Air Force Reserve and Florida Air National Guard are already test flying a modified F-15C that combines its long-range active electronically scanned array with an infrared surveillance Sniper reconnaissance pod.

The U.S. Air Force and Raytheon initially fielded the AESA radar on active-duty F-15Cs and assigned two, Alaska-based squadrons to develop tactics and techniques for intercepting cruise missiles. Those units are now based in Okinawa and would confront any cruise missile attacks coming from ships or aircraft in the region.

For U.S. homeland defense, the Eagle’s mission changes from air dominance (involving combat with high performance aircraft and missiles) to air sovereignty (keeping U.S. airspace free of threats) which usually means a more permissive combat environment where the F-15C’s lack of stealth is relatively unimportant.

A team pulled from aerospace industry, U.S. Air Force and Florida Air National Guard combined the Sniper advanced targeting pod to one of its combat-coded fighters that had already been upgraded with Raytheon’s APG-63(V)3 AESA radar.

Flight tests of the integrated, dual sensor combination were underway in less than three months, says Maj. Todd Giggy, director of F-15 operations for the Air National Guard Air Force Reserve Test Center (AATC) at Jacksonville International Airport, Fla. The program is to judge the suitability of adding Sniper ATP to ANG F-15Cs. The F-15C project office at Robins AFB, Ga. oversaw systems integration.

Total cost for the full aircraft integration interface of the Sniper sensor is estimated at less than $25,000 per aircraft. A proposed new cockpit display system is tentatively priced at $50,000 per plane. The research, design and installation effort was funded by internal research and development funds from Lockheed Martin in Orlando, Fla. and Calculex Inc. of Las Cruces, NM.

The combination of a high-resolution radar and long-range infrared surveillance would give homeland defense units the ability to locate, visually identify and attack small, airborne targets in the dark, a capability that has been lacking. The new AESA has a range nearly three times that of the F-15’s original 56-mi.-range radar. The long-range, Sniper pod can add a heat signature to further identify the target as a cruise missile, an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) or a commercial aircraft. Anecdotal accounts say the sensor can pick out man-sized heat sources beyond the carrying range of jet engine noise with enough precision to provide exact GPS coordinates.

The concept is similar to adding new applications (apps) to a smart phone.

“Instead of buying a whole new operating systems with Google Maps built into it, you get the new Google Maps app for your phone,” Giggy says. “We applied that model to fighter integration. It’s a shift that may have significant utility in applications to other sensor systems.”

The proprietary architecture model was designed by Calculex and Lockheed Martin – in discussion with the ANG – to come up with a smart-phone-like interface. An application driver would be designed for each hardware system along with a way to plug the system in and have it function properly with the existing aircraft.

“We didn’t want to buy another box,” Giggy says. “The aircraft has a central computer that we didn’t want to re-create. The only thing we are buying is the pod and the time for someone to code the application. Our hardware integration requires about a $10,000 piece of hardware. That’s a Calculex processor card that becomes the application driver. It goes into the digital video recorder in the F-15.”

[buglerbilly]

F-22 Deliveries Halt as Grounding Continues

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 8 Jul 2011 16:19

Deliveries of F-22 Raptors to the U.S. Air Force have been halted due to the continuing suspension of flight operations for the stealthy fifth-generation air superiority fighter.


A new F-22 Raptor sits at the Lockheed Martin production facility at Marietta, Ga., one of four that have technically been delivered to the U.S. Air Force but have yet to fly to their home base at Langley AFB, Va., because of a service-wide grounding (Lockheed Martin)

Even though manufacturer Lockheed Martin continues to build the aircraft at its Marietta, Ga., factory, the company is unable to do required flight testing for each aircraft as it leaves final assembly. Nor can government test pilots from the Pentagon's Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) fly their acceptance flights for new aircraft as they are readied for delivery.

"Our final assembly is scheduled through December 2011. That is still ongoing at Marietta. We delivered aircraft 4181, and that was on June 22, to the Air Force, so they have that as their aircraft," said Lockheed spokeswoman Stephanie Stinn. "After that aircraft, we can't do the required acceptance flights."

Technically, four aircraft have been delivered to the Air Force, but are being stored at Marietta pending the lifting of the flight restrictions. When the Air Force resumes F-22 flight operations, those aircraft will be flown to Langley Air Force Base (AFB), Va.

Two further aircraft, 4182 and 4183, have been completed, but the company and DCMA can't do required flight testing on those jets, Stinn said. The aircraft are being stored in a near-flight-ready status, she said.

Aircraft "4182 and 4183 were scheduled to deliver in July, but they're not in a position to do any sort of test flights, so we can't deliver," Stinn said. "Maybe early August, but we don't have a definitive date."

Aircraft 4182 and onwards, which have not undergone any of their acceptance flights, have yet to receive their final stealth coatings. The coatings are applied only after a number of flight tests have been completed, and as a result, a backlog is slowly building up.

Before the stealth coatings are applied, the aircraft fly coated only with a primer.

The Raptors have been "stood down" since May 3, according to Air Force spokeswoman Capt. Jennifer Ferrau, due to a suspected problem with the aircraft's oxygen generator.

According to one Air Force document, after reviewing work on a study of the F-22 On-Board Oxygen Generation System (OBOGS), the chief of Air Combat Command, Gen. William Fraser, instituted a temporary flight restriction for the F-22 and directed a Class E Safety Investigation.

The investigation, which began in January, includes the OBOGS installed in the A-10, F-15E, F-16, F-22, F-35 and T-6 aircraft. Fraser appointed Maj. Gen. Steve Hoog, commander of Ninth Air Force, as the investigating officer.

The flight restriction applies to all F-22 crews, but test pilots at Edwards AFB, Calif., are operating under a flight waiver that allows them to fly certain test sorties. Air Force officials at Edwards could not immediately say what kind of test sorties those aircraft are flying.

The grounding is hurting the readiness of operational F-22 pilots, who cannot maintain their currency on the twin-engine jet. The Air Force is using simulators to ease the problem as much as it can.

"Pilots and ground crew continue to train in simulators and perform ground tasks to stay as proficient as possible. Once the aircraft are cleared to fly again, there will be a period where the pilots will need in-flight training to become fully proficient on the aspects of flying that simulators cannot replicate," Ferrau said. "Some live flight is required for high-G maneuvering flight, a true outside visual, and in-flight decision-making in a dynamic environment where simulators are lacking."

[buglerbilly]

AF: No word when F-22s could fly again

By Philip Ewing Monday, July 11th, 2011 7:37 am



The Air Force’s fleet of F-22 super-jets has been grounded for more than two months now, but service officials had no details Friday about when the F-22s may fly again or even when engineers could finish the investigation into the fighters’ onboard oxygen systems.

“The safety of our airmen is paramount and we will take the necessary time to ensure we perform a thorough investigation,” said Master Sgt. Pamela Anderson, a spokeswoman for Air Combat Command.

Anderson told Buzz that when the grounding is lifted, there may be a bow wave in optempo for F-22 units — Buzz’s phrase, not hers — as everyone involved gets re-qualified on their jobs under operational conditions, as opposed to working with simulators or static aircraft.

“Pilots and ground crew continue to train in simulators and perform ground tasks to stay as proficient as possible,” she said. “Once the aircraft are cleared to fly again, there will be a period where the pilots will need in-flight training to become fully proficient on the aspects of flying that simulators cannot replicate. Some live flight is required for high-G maneuvering flight, a true outside visual, and in-flight decision making in a dynamic environment where simulators are lacking.”

The F-22s could take off if they absolutely had to, the Air Force says — Anderson said the jet “remains available for national security-directed missions” — meaning that if the balloon went up on a World War III-type situation, the fighters and their crews might have to chance it in combat even if engineers didn’t have a permanent fix for their oxygen problems.

Meanwhile, as John wrote this weekend at Defense Tech, this grounding is not only affecting the Air Force’s stockpile of F-22s, it means Lockheed has had to stop delivering new aircraft, too. (See article above....)

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/07/11/af-no-word-when-f-22s-could-fly-again/#ixzz1RoXniRJZ
DoDBuzz.com

[buglerbilly]

Is the F-22 Too Difficult to Use? Big Questions Surround Raptor's Grounding

(Source: Project On Government Oversight; issued July 12, 2011)

Many pixels have been spilled on the recent grounding of the F-22 Raptor fleet, problems with the plane's oxygen systems, and the possible role of the oxygen system in the November 2010 crash of an F-22 in Alaska and death of its pilot. Here's a quick roundup of coverage of the latest problems facing this very expensive plane, followed by some questions that I think need to be answered.

What we know so far:

-- “The On-Board Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS) has been under investigation since an F-22 crashed in November just outside Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. Until the stand-down, Raptor sorties had been restricted to an altitude of 25,000 feet or below for training missions because of the potential malfunctions.” [Air Force Times, May 10, 2011]

-- “That [November] accident, in which the pilot was killed, is under investigation and has not been linked to the oxygen system concerns.” [Flightglobal, June 16, 2011]

-- “The grounding order was spurred by a five instances since late April of F-22 ‘physiological-hypoxia-like’ events that may be indications of potential malfunctions, the Air Force said. … One incident involved a pilot assigned to the 302nd Fighter Squadron in Alaska who ‘scraped the underside of the aircraft on trees during a landing approach,’ an e-mail to congressional defense committees said. ‘The pilot does not recall the incident and is being treated for physiological symptoms.’”[Bloomberg, May 10, 2011]

-- “Prior to the five recent F-22 events, nine incidents were reported between June 2008 and February, the Air Force said. …Those nine incidents trigged a safety board investigation of the Honeywell system.” [Bloomberg, May 10, 2011]

-- “Although internally described as the ‘OBOGS safety investigation’, the probe launched after the 3 May safety stand-down of the F-22A fleet is ‘not limited’ to that particular system, Air Combat Command (ACC) said in emailed responses to questions.” [Flightglobal, June 16, 2011]

-- “The Air Force’s fleet of F-22 super-jets has been grounded for more than two months now, but service officials had no details Friday about when the F-22s may fly again or even when engineers could finish the investigation into the fighters’ onboard oxygen systems.” [DoDBuzz, July 11, 2011]

-- “The USAF investigation is also comparing the F-22's life support system with other strike aircraft in its fleet, including the Lockheed F-35A Lightning II, Fairchild Republic A-10, Boeing F-15, Lockheed F-16 and Hawker Beechcraft T-6A, the ACC said.” [Flightglobal, June 16, 2011]

[There are] two sets of questions:

1. What did the Air Force know before the recent groundings? As Bloomberg noted, there were nine instances from June 2008 and February of this year that triggered an earlier safety investigation into the Honeywell oxygen system. Then five more since February leading to the latest investigation and groundings. Plus, there is the possibility that the November 2010 crash and death were related to the oxygen system, although we do not know if the accident investigation is pointing that way or not yet. Were there inklings of oxygen system problems before June 2008? What did the earlier oxygen safety investigation find? Why are problems in this critical life support system only now coming to light?

2. Given the extraordinary cost of this aircraft and the myriad problems in maintaining it (you can’t use a plane if it’s grounded), is the F-22 too expensive and too difficult to use? The oxygen system issue is just the latest fiasco in this program.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020_pf.html

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Some F-22s Given Waivers Despite USAF Grounding

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 14 Jul 2011 17:24

Test pilots at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., have been putting the F-22 Raptor through its paces even though the rest of the fleet remains grounded by a suspected problem with the aircraft's oxygen generation system.

The seasoned aviators at the California base have been granted a special flight waiver so they can test an unrelated software update.

"The test community flew a limited number of test sorties under an approved waiver to verify Update 3.5 software fixes to be fielded later this fall," said Air Force Materiel Command spokeswoman JoAnne Rumple. "The test flights conducted under the waiver were done in order to continue our ongoing, programmed efforts to ensure all aspects of the F-22 system remain safe and current."

The Upgrade 3.5 software corrects a Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System timing issue and also includes an update to the Flight Controls System, the Integrated Vehicle Subsystem Controller and the Conditional Event Reporting Data software. It is not related to the Increment 3.1 upgrade that adds additional weapons and radar modes to the twin-engine jet, which is due to be fielded later this year.

Nor are the Edwards test sorties related to fixing problems with the oxygen generator.

However, the test community at Edwards can closely monitor flights because those F-22s are equipped with specialized flight-test instruments and data links.

"The test team employed a comprehensive approach to risk mitigation for those flights, to include real-time monitoring of instrumented aircraft systems not available with operational aircraft," Rumple said.

[tiddles]

A bit late for us but might help others and generate a bit of money for the US manufacturer.

USAF Might Upgrade Engines on Older Model C-130s - Defense News

By DAVE MAJUMDAR
Published: 20 Jul 2011 18:29 The performance of the U.S. Air Force's new C-130J in intra-theater lift in places like Afghanistan is so effective that the service may replace the engines of its older-model Hercules aircraft to increase their fuel efficiency, the service's second highest ranking uniformed leader said July 20.

"Throughout the single-command area of operations, we have prioritized the use of newer, more efficient C-130Js for intra-theater airlift over older, less efficient C-130 models," said Gen. Philip Breedlove, Air Force vice chief, at the U.S. Army & U.S. Air Force Energy Forum in Arlington, Va.
"In fact, this difference is significant enough that we are considering commercially available engines for our older C-130 fleet that would cost less in maintenance and fuel consumption."

While re-engining older aircraft would be beneficial, the problem for the service's accountants is that any savings from such an endeavor would mostly fall outside of the five-year budgetary cycle, Air Force undersecretary Erin Conaton said at the same conference. Conaton said she wants to make sure the Air Force not only is buying new, more efficient engines for older aircraft, but also invests in the next generation of engines.

"Those are the things I'm very conscious of trying to make sure we compete for resources as we go forward," she said. "Because I think in times of budgetary restriction, many people look to cut the things that are of long-term benefit."

Speaking to reporters at the conference, Kevin Geiss, deputy assistant Air Force secretary for energy, said that next-generation engine programs such as the ADaptive Versatile ENgine Technology (ADVENT) could be as much as 30 percent more fuel efficient than the current generation F119 or F135 found on the F-22 and F-35, respectively.

ADVENT, Geiss said, is currently an Air Force Research Laboratory program moving into the technology development phase.

"The estimates that we have now is that it could cut fuel consumption by about 30 percent for that fighter aircraft type of engine," he said.

The F-35 engine, Geiss said, uses much more fuel than the F-16's or F-15's engine, and as such the fuel savings would be significant. Geiss added the caveat that the Lightning II's engine, which produces about 43,000 pounds of thrust, is much more powerful than those older engines.

Geiss said he couldn't immediately offer a timeline on when the ADVENT engine would be operational, but said that a sixth-generation follow-on to the F-35 could use such a propulsion system.

For subsonic aircraft the service is working on the Versatile, Affordable, Advanced Turbine Engines and Highly Efficient Embedded Turbine Engine programs, Geiss said. Much of the ADVENT technology would be applicable to those engines, he said. The service does have a schedule by which it intends to mature these new engine technologies but Geiss didn't have those details on hand.

"Some of the things we still need to develop on the subsonic aircraft are the advanced materials to enable those technologies," Geiss said. But "those three engine technologies I mentioned would be revolutionary, not evolutionary," he said.
Advertisement
Armed Forces Journal is the leading joint service monthly magazine for officers and leaders in the United States military community.

C4ISR Journal, published 10 times per year, is a professional journal dedicated to the rapidly advancing, high-tech realm of military intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

Training & Simulation Journal, often referred to as TSJ, is a bimonthly journal that provides information on the latest trends in products and opportunities in the global military training and simulation market

[tiddles]

A-10 may serve until 2040.
This is not a bad idea IMO if it works out ,after all there is really no equilivant to it around in Westerm AFs,and no replacement on the horizon ,I am not really counting the T6 ground attack version as a real replacement.
Tiddles

A-10 may serve until 2040
So it might be 2040 before the Air Force’s fleet of A-10 Warthog attack jets is replaced by the F-35 and whatever drones emerge in the coming years.

Check out this solicitation for tooling necessary to keep the jets flying until 2040.

Here are the basics:

The Government is contemplating to contract for engineering services on behalf of the A-10 Systems Program Officer (SPO). The services contemplated include the following:

1 — Develop plan to identify available A-10 Tooling that will be needed to support and sustain the A-10 Aircraft until 2040.
2 — Prioritize tooling based on need and critical nature of tool.
3 — Develop Teamcenter product structure and workflows to properly link and manage the engineering data, scanned data and physical tools with the Air Force Global Logistics Support Center and A-10 production facilities.
4 — Digitally scan the tools according to the priority list and validate prior to linking to engineering data in the A-10 Teamcenter Database.
5 — Develop CAD/CAM interface data by reverse engineering (scanned data) where needed.

This would put the invaluable Hog up there with workhorse jets like the B-52 Stratofortress and KC-135 Stratotanker as planes that will serve until 2040.

This may be due to the fact that the A-10 is such a unique and cost effective weapon. It’s a relatively simple plane that’s tough as nails and can do everything from kill tanks to loiter low and slow over a battlefield dispatching enemy insurgents.

While it’s pretty easy to see the F-35 performing the ground attack and fighter missions of jets like the fast-moving F-16s, it’s harder to see the JSF rolling in slow and unleashing a torrent cannon fire on a beehive of enemies. Do you really want to risk getting a stealth jet all shot up on CAS runs?

Furthermore, could this be a sign that the service is considering slowing of reducing its F-35 buy in favor of keeping more Hogs in service and while focusing on using the JSF to replace F-15s and F-16s, (at least initially)? This last one may be a stretch, but who knows?





Read more: http://defensetech.org/2011/07/22/a-10-warthogs-could-serve-until-2040/#ixzz1StXJ0jo9
Defense.org

[ADMk2]

OBOGS - USAF Calls In The Boffins

Posted by Bill Sweetman at 7/22/2011 7:56 AM CDT

Boffins, eh? I thought they'd just take Eurofighter's (I mean Bill's) word on how to take care of these issues...

The U.S. Air Force has convened a special panel of its Scientific Advisory Board to look at Obogs-related problems - considered the most likely cause of an F-22 crash in Alaska last November.

(Obogs is the On-board oxygen generating system.)

Under SAB supervision, the Air Force will conduct "carefully controlled" flight tests to explore the various subsystems involved. "If required, the F-22 can and will be put into service to meet essential national security missions," the Air Force says, but for the time being the grounding of the force continues.

Update - Galrahn reports that the House Armed Services Committee is conducting a hearing on Tuesday that will cover the F-22 grounding and other readiness issues.

http://tinyurl.com/43ca2yp

[buglerbilly]

F-22 Grounding: Propane, Anti-Freeze, and Other Toxins Found in Pilots' Blood

(Source: Project on Government Oversight; issued July 27, 2011)


Continuing revelations about problems with oxygen-generating systems fitted to US fighters raise new questions, while the F-22 fleet remains grounded. (USAF photo)

First it was oxygen problems. Then there was treatment for "physiological symptoms." And now the news is that toxins are keeping the F-22s down.

But that doesn't mean we have definitive answers yet. Toxins in the cockpit? Yes. Where are they coming from? There is still debate over that.

According to the Air Force Times, blood tests of F-22 pilots showed a host of chemicals, including anti-freeze, propane and burned polyalphaolefin, a synthetic oil, after flights where they reported experiencing cognitive problems.

These toxins, along with carbon monoxide, may be causing hypoxia, which is a lack of oxygen. Hypoxia can cause reduced brain function and memory loss. F-22 pilots reported being unable to remember how to change radio frequencies and scraping treetops when approaching the runway.

In November 2010, an F-22 crashed in Alaska and the pilot, Capt. Jeffrey Haney, was killed. Sources told the Air Force Times that in his final radio calls he sounded drunk, a symptom of hypoxia.

Back in May, we wrote about the grounding of the F-22 fleet and asked why these widespread problems were not detected in testing. It may be that the problem is still with the On-Board Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS), but the source of the toxins is unclear.

As one POGO commenter recently mentioned, one possibility is that what’s happening here “isn’t too different from running your car engine while the garage door is closed.”

From the Air Force Times:

“Part of the problem, at least for pilots flying from Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, where many of the known incidents have occurred, may be the startup procedures used in winter, one source said.

“Because of the harsh climate, pilots often start their jet engines inside a hangar before taking off. That could allow exhaust gases to be trapped in the building, sucked back into the engines, and ingested into the bleed air intakes that are located within the engines’ compressor sections that supply the OBOGS, sources said.

“On the other hand, a different source told the Air Force Times that “many of the hypoxia incidents have occurred well into flights or even during a day’s second mission, long after the plane has left the Elmendorf hangar.”

“Either way, considering that, on average, one F-22 costs $350 million and each hour of flight costs $44,000, ensuring that they can fly is both a safety and a budgetary concern.

The F-22 fleet was grounded 86 days ago. If the oxygen problems are not solved in the next 124 days, all F-22 pilots will have to be re-qualified. That process could take four to six weeks, according to the Air Force Times. And since all of the pilots would need to be re-qualified, non-current pilots would be qualifying each other, which would add to the delays.

If that happens, the F-22s and their pilots might not be ready to fly until January 2012.

For now, pilots are putting in more time at the gym, practicing in simulators, and taxiing to the end of the runway and then returning to the hangar.

But the questions POGO's Director of Investigations Nick Schwellenbach had about the program two weeks ago are still unanswered.

What did the Air Force know before the recent groundings? As Bloomberg noted, there were nine instances from June 2008 and February of this year that triggered an earlier safety investigation into the Honeywell oxygen system. Then five more since February leading to the latest investigation and groundings.

Plus, there is the possibility that the November 2010 crash and death were related to the oxygen system, although we do not know if the accident investigation is pointing that way or not yet.

Were there inklings of oxygen system problems before June 2008? What did the earlier oxygen safety investigation find? Why are problems in this critical life support system only now coming to light?

-ends-

[McFriday]

The articles a week old...I've added this link to Honeywell because anytime I see "lithium" and "breathing" in the same locale, I get a little nervous.

http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/technology/trends3/solutions3/obogs.html?c=13


Toxins Grounded F-22s: Sources
Post-Flight Tests Found Chemicals in Pilots' Blood
By DAVE MAJUMDAR
Published: 24 July 2011

The U.S. Air Force's fleet of F-22 Raptor fighters has been grounded since May 3 due to toxins entering the cockpit via the aircraft's life support systems, sources with extensive F-22 experience said.

Service leaders grounded the stealthy twin-engine fighter after pilots suffered "hypoxialike symptoms" on 14 occasions. The incidents affected Raptor pilots at six of seven F-22 bases; the exception is Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla.

But despite an investigation that has spanned nearly three months, no one yet knows what toxin or combinations of toxins might have caused the incidents, nor is it clear exactly how the chemicals are entering the pilots' air supply, sources said.

Toxins found in pilots' blood include oil fumes, residue from burned polyalphaolefin (PAO) anti-freeze, and, in one case, propane. Carbon monoxide, which leaves the blood quickly, is also suspected.

"There is a lot of nasty stuff getting pumped into the pilots' bloodstream through what they're breathing from that OBOGS [On-Board Oxygen Generation System]. That's fact," one former F-22 pilot said. "How bad it is, what type it is, exactly how much of it, how long - all these things have not been answered."

The blood tests were performed after each of the 14 incidents in which pilots reported various cognitive dysfunctions and other symptoms of hypoxia. One couldn't remember how to change radio frequencies. Another scraped trees on his final approach to the runway - and later could not recall the incident.

"These guys are getting tested for toxins and they've [gotten] toxins out of their bloodstreams," the source said. "One of the guys was expelling propane."

This source, along with the others, requested anonymity for fear of retribution.

The line of inquiry may shed new light on the death of Capt. Jeff "Bong" Haney, a 525th Fighter Squadron pilot who was killed when his F-22 crashed last November near Anchorage. Sources said that in Haney's last few radio calls before his jet disappeared, he sounded drunk, a classic sign of hypoxia. Haney was known as a prodigiously skilled aviator who was in line to attend the elite Air Force Weapons School.

Air Force officials have said they have not yet completed the investigation into the crash.

Asked for comment about the possibility that F-22 pilots had been exposed to carbon monoxide, an Air Force spokesman, Maj. Chad Steffey said, "The safety of our aircrews is paramount, and the Air Force continues to carefully study all factors of F-22 flight safety."

Asked about other toxins, Steffey referred questions to the Air Force Safety Center at Kirtland AFB, N.M., where officials did not repond by press time.

Officials with Lockheed Martin, which builds the aircraft, said they are cooperating with the investigation but cannot comment further.

Carbon Monoxide?

Beside the various toxins found in the pilots' blood, carbon monoxide is another potential cause of the hypoxia incidents.

The gas, one of many generated as exhaust by the plane's jet engines, might be getting into the cockpit, sources said.

Part of the problem, at least for pilots flying from Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, where many of the known incidents have occurred, may be the startup procedures used in winter, one source said.

Because of the harsh climate, pilots often start their jet engines inside a hangar before taking off. That could allow exhaust gases to be trapped in the building, sucked back into the engines, and ingested into the bleed air intakes that are located within the engines' compressor sections that supply the OBOGS, sources said. The layout, sources added, is standard for modern jet aircraft.

But another source said that many of the hypoxia incidents have occurred well into flights or even during a day's second mission, long after the plane has left the Elmendorf hangar.

The U.S. Navy had problems with the OBOGS on its F/A-18 Hornet, which sucked carbon monoxide into its oxygen system during carrier operations. Between 2002 and 2009, Hornet aviators suffered 64 reported episodes of hypoxia, including two that killed the pilots, according to the July-August 2010 issue of "Approach," a Navy Safety Center publication.

The Navy modified the planes' OBOGS, has had no recent similar incidents and is not currently investigating the systems, Naval Air Systems Command officials said.

USAF Expands Investigation

In January, a safety investigation board led by Maj. Gen. Steven Hoog began looking into the the OBOGS on the F-16, F-15E and F-35 fighters; the A-10 attack jet and the T-6 trainer, according to May statements by officials with the service's Air Combat Command, which oversees combat aircraft.

In May, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley had ordered the service's Scientific Advisory Board to conduct a "quick-look study, gather and evaluate information, and recommend any needed corrective actions on aircraft using on-board oxygen generation systems," according to a July 21 statement by service officials.

The release indicated that the service is now looking at more types of aircraft: the B-1 and B-2 bombers and the CV-22 tilt-rotor and "other aircraft as appropriate."

According to the release, the investigation is conducting a "series of carefully controlled in-flight tests, the team will examine the subsystems identified in reported incidents. These include the pressurization system, mask and cockpit oxygen levels."

The release said the Scientific Advisory Board investigation followed the grounding of the F-22 fleet, but did not say whether it superseded, replaced or is merely accompanying the Hoog investigation.

One source said that F-22 test pilots at Edwards AFB, Calif., last week started flying sorties as the investigate OBOGS concerns as part of the Air Force safety investigation.

Air Force officials have confirmed only that some test pilots at the base are flying their jets under a special waiver granted to them to test an unrelated software upgrade.

However, the operational fleet remains grounded, with pilots and ground crews practicing in simulators as much as they can. But that is not a real solution because the pilots won't be able to maintain currency, one former F-22 pilot said.

"After 210 days, they've got to start retraining everybody," he said.

It would take weeks for the instructor pilots at Tyndall to re-qualify themselves and then start to train others, the former pilot said. Pilots with lapped currencies would be re-qualifying each other.

It would take four to six weeks afterward to re-qualify the operational squadrons. Service officials confirmed that 12 Raptors are stranded at Hill AFB, Utah, but declined to identify their squadron. The jets came to the desert base for a Combat Hammer exercise in which pilots and ground crews practice loading and releasing live air-to-ground weapons. Service officials said the jets are from the 1st Fighter Wing at Langley AFB, Va.

Meanwhile, Lockheed can't deliver new Raptors to the Air Force because the company and the Pentagon's Defense Contract Management Agency are unable to fly required test sorties needed to certify the jets meet specifications. Four aircraft have technically been delivered to the service but can't fly to their new home at Langley AFB.

At least two additional aircraft have been completed but remain at the factory undelivered.

[buglerbilly]

I still do not understand what the Hell is going on here...............

We have aircraft like the Raptor that have been flying for years yet this problem occurs now? Really?

The US's major allies all fly the same aircraft, similar (new generation) aircraft or derivatives thereof, yet I don't see the same problem Overseas.

Like I said it's a puzzle to me........?

[McFriday]

I still do not understand what the Hell is going on here...............

We have aircraft like the Raptor that have been flying for years yet this problem occurs now? Really?

The US's major allies all fly the same aircraft, similar (new generation) aircraft or derivatives thereof, yet I don't see the same problem Overseas.

Like I said it's a puzzle to me........?

There's certainly a lot not to know. The various 'reporting' mentioning very non-specific possible problems with OBOGS over the last X [pick a number] of years, some say no probs eg. Typhoon. others say all fixed eg. Rhino.

But are all OBOGS created equal and use the same chemicals? Obviously not, which is why I included the Honeywell link to show their claim to have changed their formula, is it relevant? Don't know.

One would think that if ensuring clean air for reasonably low level, low risk, short flights to return to base or even deliver aircraft etc a work around could be made isolating the pilot from the OBOGS. Yet the class is grounded as if it were a catastrophic structural defect. Doesn't make sense to me either.

Curioser and curioser.

Mac

[buglerbilly]

Some of the OBOGS are virtually identical, from the same manufacturer, yet we have the current farcical situation.................

[buglerbilly]

Every Bug, Every Gas, Right Now: Air Force Wants Instant WMD Detector

By Lena Groeger August 3, 2011 | 12:00 pm



Spurred by the anthrax hysteria of 2001, the U.S. government has thrown billions of dollars into developing new equipment and technologies to detect chemical and biological warfare agents. Now the Air Force has a plan that, if it actually works, would render all those billions obsolete.

A new solicitation from the service describes the need for “nanoparticle-based sensors that can be deployed in biological environments for the real-time detection of agents of interest.” In other words, the Air Force wants an instant, in vivo detector for every single toxic chemical and nasty germ on the face of the earth — from smallpox to nerve agents.

The chemical detection part is only slightly less wild than the rest of the proposal. Currently, the military has a variety of ways to detect and identify chemical agents, from stationary detectors that monitor the air for toxic clouds at a distance, or handheld devices that travel with a soldier and give off a warning in the event of a chemical exposure.

But detecting biological agents is another feat entirely — living organisms are orders of magnitude more complex, constantly changing, and take much longer to identify. Typical lab tests can take hours (if not days) to analyze, process, and confirm a specific biological agent, and that’s only if the lab knows exactly what antigen it’s looking for.

This sensor, therefore, seems beyond any reasonable stretch of the imagination. It would pack all existing chemical-agent-detecting capabilities into a tiny cell. It would solve the hugely daunting problem of identifying not just one, but hundreds of dangerous biological organisms (many of which look indistinguishable from harmless germs). And most significantly, it would do this all in real time.

The strategy the Air Force proposes is based on a system perfected by nature for life in complex environments: bimolecular switches. These switches turn on and off all the time, controlling how our cells work and how we respond to our environments. For example, specific proteins in our nose bind to odor molecules (whether they’re wafting off freshly baked bread or rotting meat) and let us detect different smells.

The turning on and off these switches is usually accompanied by a change in shape — “off” the biomolecule lies flat, “on” and it gets folded; “off” it’s circular, “on” it’s square. In some cases the specific change triggers a signal — the folded or square position may activate some other enzyme, or open a channel in a cell. Scientists have even engineered artificial switches to start glowing or giving off some kind of electrochemical or biochemical signal once they are switched “on.”

The idea then, is to design “sensor systems that can enter living cells and complex environments and remain in an ‘off’ state until exposure to a target leads to a [signal].” These nano-sized sensors would float around the bloodstream until they ran into some toxic chemical or disease-causing germ. At that point, they would bind, change shape, and give off some kind of “readout,” which could presumably be measured (perhaps showing up on a lab test).

The Air Force claims it wouldn’t dole out these biosensors willy-nilly — only when troops are likely to run into dangerous biological or chemical warfare agents. However, it likes to keep its options open: “Ideally, this sensor should be easy to implant and non-toxic so as to be administered even under appropriate suspicion.”

The project will be tricky, to say the least. Biomolecular switches have been designed for very specific uses before — for example, a few years ago, bio-engineers genetically combined two proteins (one that attached to glucose, one that glowed), to create a molecular switch that would light up when it encountered sugar. But the Air Force wants a sensor with “broad applicability to detect changes caused by known and unknown threats.”

Like making a key for a lock you’ve never seen, designing an uber-specific microscopic agent to track down an “unknown threat” may prove slightly difficult. So good luck, Air Force. On this project, you’re gonna need it.

Photo: U.S. Army

[buglerbilly]

Decision to Replace USAF Trainer Moves Ahead

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 3 Aug 2011 21:16

The U.S. Air Force has moved one step closer to deciding on what it will do to replace its aging fleet of the T-38 Talon advanced jet-trainers.

In June the service presented its T-X Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) to the Pentagon's Cost Assessment & Program Evaluation (CAPE) office, led by Christine Fox, for a sufficiency review according to Air Education and Training Command (AETC) officials.

Previously AETC and the Aeronautical Systems Center (ASC) completed the AoA and had those requirements validated by the Air Force Requirements Oversight Council (AFROC).

Once CAPE completes its review, the AoA will be sent to Pentagon procurement chief Ashton Carter's office. Subsequently, a Defense Acquisition Board (DAB), chaired by Carter or his successor, will determine the fate of the program. President Barack Obama nominated Carter to be the next deputy defense secretary.

"The outcome of in-progress fiscal year 13 budget process and DAB will determine the way ahead for T-X," said AETC spokesman Maj. Rosaire Bushey.

[buglerbilly]

Eighth C-5B inducted to become Super Galaxy

August 05, 2011



The sun shines above the newest addition to the C-5M modernization program. Tail number 85-0003, a C-5B Galaxy, is the eighth aircraft inducted into modernization production line to become a Super Galaxy.

This aircraft is based at Dover Air Force Base, Del. It was first delivered to Dover AFB on November 4, 1986. Throughout its career, this aircraft has supported the warfighter's operations in Desert Storm and, since 2003, it has delivered cargo in locations such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Italy, Germany, Japan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Morocco, Qatar, Spain and Turkey. Tail number 85-0003 has accumulated more than 19,000 flight hours and more than 4,500 full-stop landings.

There are two more inductions scheduled for 2011.

Source: Lockheed Martin

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

USAF C-27Js Commence Combat Ops

Posted by Robert Wall at 8/8/2011 3:36 AM CDT

The U.S. Air Force has now begun combat operations with the C-27J in Afghanistan.

Here is one of the first pictures of the airlifter at Kandahar air base:


(Photo: USAF/Senior Airman Corey Hook)

The airlifter is assigned to the 702nd Expeditionary Airlift Squadron, which falls under the 451st Expeditionary Operations Group.

Combat operations began August 4, the USAF says, after the second of the tactical transports arrived in theater.

[buglerbilly]

High costs, malfunctions plague F-22 Raptor fighter jets

The fleet of 158 F-22 planes — costing $412 million each — has never entered combat and has been grounded since May 3 because of a government safety investigation. The probe follows more than a dozen incidents in which oxygen was cut off to pilots, a problem suspected of contributing to at least one fatal accident.


The F-22 Raptor jet hasn’t been used in conflicts because its technology wasn’t needed, Air Force officials say, adding that the F-22 is worth its high price tag -- an estimated $412 million each -- because it is the “most advanced fighter aircraft, with unrivaled capabilities.” (Ben Stansall, AFP/Getty Images / August 7, 2011)

By W.J. Hennigan, Los Angeles Times

August 6, 2011, 7:47 p.m.

It's the most expensive fighter jet ever built. Yet the F-22 Raptor has never seen a day of combat, and its future is clouded by a government safety investigation that has grounded the jet for months.

The fleet of 158 F-22s has been sidelined since May 3, after more than a dozen incidents in which oxygen was cut off to pilots, making them woozy. The malfunction is suspected of contributing to at least one fatal accident.

At an estimated cost of $412 million each, the F-22s amount to about $65 billion sitting on the tarmac. The grounding is the latest dark chapter for an aircraft plagued by problems, and whose need was called into question even before its first test flight.

The sleek, diamond-winged fighter was conceived during the Cold War in the early 1980s to thump a new generation of Soviet fighter jets in dogfights. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Soviet fighters that the U.S. military planners feared never moved beyond development and were never built.

Now, while other U.S. warplanes pummel targets, the F-22 has sat silently throughout battles in Afghanistan. It has gone unused in Iraq. There has been no call for it in the conflict above Libya.

"For all that gigantic cost, you have a system you can't even use," said Winslow T. Wheeler, a defense budget specialist and frequent Pentagon critic at the Center for Defense Information. "It's a fundamental explanation on how the country has gotten itself in the financial mess that it's in today."

Designed in Burbank and built in Marietta, Ga., the F-22 won the final go-ahead from Congress in 1991, thanks in part to a lobbying campaign by the plane's manufacturer, Lockheed Martin Corp. — then Lockheed Corp. — and its near 1,100 subcontractors in 44 states.

"The Cold War was over, it didn't make any sense to go forward with the program," said Thomas Christie, a retired official who worked 50 years at the Pentagon. "But the Air Force built up such a large constituency up on the Hill that it couldn't be killed."

The Air Force wanted an engineering marvel with unmatched features of any other aircraft. Lockheed Martin delivered.

F-22 engines have thrust-vectoring nozzles that can move up and down, making the plane exceptionally agile. It can reach supersonic speeds without using afterburners, enabling the plane to fly faster and farther. It's also packed with cutting-edge radar and sensors, allowing the pilot to identify, track and shoot an aircraft before the enemy pilot can detect the F-22.

"The Air Force piled it all on," said Pierre Sprey, an aeronautical engineer who helped design the F-16 and A-10 jets. "It became a vehicle to carry a laundry list of technologies. The plane is a textbook case on the dangers of complexity."

As the Air Force saw more opportunities for design changes, the F-22 grew in cost. When the plane first entered service in 2005, it didn't take long for problems to arise.

In 2006, an F-22 pilot was stuck in the plane on the ground for five hours because the canopy wouldn't pop open. Firefighters had to cut the pilot out. A replacement canopy cost about $71,000, the Air Force said.

In 2007, a software error in the navigational systems caused 12 F-22s to turn around from a flight to Okinawa, Japan, from Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Hawaii. Six days later, engineers corrected the error at a cost of between $200,000 and $300,000, the Air Force estimated.

Last year, the fighters were inspected for rust corrosion "due to poorly designed drainage in the cockpit," according to the House Armed Services Committee. Fourteen F-22s had rusting parts in the cockpit replaced, the Air Force said.

Corrosion has also been an issue with the plane's radar-evading skin, which, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said, is "difficult to manage and maintain, requiring nearly twice the number of maintenance personnel as anticipated."

The plane takes about 3,000 people to maintain, the Air Force said. The service calculated that for every hour in the air, the F-22 spends 45 hours undergoing maintenance.

Two decades ago, the U.S. government planned to buy 648 of the fighters for $139 million apiece; the cost has almost tripled since then to $412 million, the Government Accountability Office said.

Recently retired Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates ended the purchase in 2009 at 188 planes, only a handful of which are still being built. The $273-million increase per plane translates to $51.3 billion in lost buying power for the F-22 program.

"The reality is we are fighting two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the F-22 has not performed a single mission in either theater," Gates told a congressional panel in 2008.

Air Force officials said the F-22 hasn't been used in conflicts because its technology wasn't needed. They added that all aircraft have problems that crop up, and that the F-22 is worth the high price tag because it is the "most advanced fighter aircraft, with unrivaled capabilities."

"The aircraft was designed for high-threat environments, not what we've seen in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya," said Lt. Col. E. John Teichert, who until recently commanded the F-22 squadron at Edwards Air Force Base. "If the F-22 prevents a military engagement with another country, it is well worth the money."

Even though the F-22 has never been sent over a war zone, it has experienced seven major crashes with two casualties — one of which may have been linked to the oxygen malfunction.

Capt. Jeff Haney, 31, was killed in a F-22 after a crash in the Alaskan wilderness in November near Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson. An ongoing Air Force investigation is examining the oxygen system as part of its probe.

The Air Force said the order in May to keep the planes grounded was caused by 14 instances since June 2008 in which pilots experienced sickness related to bad oxygen flow.

The Air Force said its investigation into the accident and oxygen problems "is currently scheduled to be completed and delivered to the secretary of the Air Force this coming fall."

The oxygen system problems have compelled the government to examine its forthcoming F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is also made by Lockheed. The F-35 is smaller than the F-22 and will be used jointly by the Navy, Marines and Air Force. The Pentagon plans to buy 2,457 F-35s.

John P. Jumper, a retired Air Force general, former Air Force chief of staff to President George W. Bush and fierce backer of the F-22 program, said the F-22 problems need to be resolved soon so the planes and pilots return to service.

"It's very troublesome," he said. "This is the sort of thing that deserves a thorough examination so it never can happen again."

william.hennigan@latimes.com

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Aggresive Plan Needed For U.S. Electronic Offense

Posted by David A. Fulghum at 8/9/2011 12:31 PM CDT

Plans to put the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter may come to naught due to high cost, unavailability of aircraft for specialized electronic attack missions and advances in penetrating unmanned aircraft.

Foes are making rapid advances with non-kinetic weapons, networked command-and-control and cyber intrusions—using cheap, commercially available electronics—that are proving expensive for the U.S. to counter, say electronic warfare specialists.

Part of the answer, say defense specialists, is to turn away from designing new, specialized, air, ground and ship platforms and shift the available funding to networked and readily upgradable systems that use existing or cheap unmanned designs.

The Navy’s NGJ system is being designed to attack enemy electronics with jamming, pulses of high-power microwaves, and packets of algorithms to infiltrate enemy networks. It will likely migrate to both large and small, penetrating, unmanned aircraft. These new designs—now being referred to as adjunct platforms—will have roll-on, roll-off payloads that allow them to perform specialized missions with a minimum of transformation time.

“AEA provided by the Growler is central to the continued war-fighting success of Navy aviation and the rest of the military,” says Richard Gilpin, deputy assistant Navy secretary for air programs. “While NGJ is not the only program of note in the AEA system of systems, it is clearly the most important.”

Navy officials with the most insight into the NGJ program predict there will be a lot of challenges, but they intend to make it affordable, interoperable and upgradable enough to get the maximum capability out of it for as much as 40-50 years.

Another issue is that all corners of the electromagnetic spectrum are now being exploited. Dominating what is called the “spectrum high-ground” will demand that the U.S. adopt an aggressive, offensive program of electronic and anti-electronic operations.

“The Navy will shift its war-fighting EW perspective from low-density, single-platform solutions [for example, the EA-6B Prowler] to a networked system of systems that acts in a collaborative manner with software applications that can share data,” says Marine Corps Lt. Col. Jason Schuette, aviation EW requirements officer for the Navy’s operations staff. “Air-ground spectrum capabilities will provide combined arms effects and allow the military to keep an offensive stance. Maintaining the electromagnetic spectrum as maneuver space presents the enemy with [surveillance and communication] dilemmas.”

While operators are loath to discuss EW and electronic attack (EA) capabilities, there are some hints from discussions about the anticipated new U.S. capabilities.

“Once an airborne electronic attack pod is turned on to deliver non-kinetic fires, the ground force will have its own signal-detection devices with which it can immediately garner battle damage assessment of the effects on enemy systems and to see what the foe is doing in trying to counter these effects,” Schuette says.

“Hardware and software innovation that drives commercial industry is also driving our adversaries to devise better ways to exploit or disrupt traditional defenses as well as the command and control of precision navigation and timing and cyber operations,” Schuette says. “As a result, the [U.S.] does not have the spectrum high ground. Commercial development is letting the enemy get the best of us. Our challenge is to develop capabilities that will allow an offensive mind-set. That is what has always allowed us to stay ahead of our adversaries.”

[buglerbilly]

Pentagon’s Mach 20 Missile Lost Over Pacific — Again

By Noah Shachtman August 11, 2011 | 4:54 pm



For the second time in a row, the Pentagon has lost contact with an experimental hypersonic vehicle over the Pacific, just minutes after it was launched from space.

The flight of the Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 was hotly anticipated in military and aerospace circles. The HTV-2 was supposed to ride on the back of a rocket to the edge of space, where it would separate and scream through the atmosphere at 13,000 mph before splashing into the Pacific Ocean, about 4,100 miles and 30 minutes later.

If the flight worked, it’d show how missiles of this shape and flight pattern could strike targets halfway around the world almost instantly. And that would be a major step forward in the Pentagon’s “Prompt Global Strike” plan to attack foes anywhere on the globe in less than an hour. For now, however, those hopes have been dashed.

“There’s no way you can call it a success. Let’s be blunt about it,” a source familiar with the program tells Danger Room.

In a statement, Darpa tried to put a positive shine on the day’s events. The Minotaur IV rocket “successfully inserted the aircraft into the desired trajectory,” the agency noted. The HTV-2 “transitioned to Mach 20 aerodynamic flight,” and that “more than nine minutes of data was collected before an anomaly caused loss of signal.”

“We’ll learn. We’ll try again. That’s what it takes,” Darpa director Regina Dugan added.

But that may be easier said than done. Before the test, Darpa announced that this would be the last HTV-2 flight that the agency would run. The idea was to transfer control of the program to another branch of the military, most likely the Air Force. Those other branches may not be willing to take on such an expensive program that hasn’t shown much forward momentum, as of yet.


Uploaded by robotpignet on Aug 9, 2011
More info: http://robotpig.net/aerospace-news/darpa-falcon-htv-2-hypersonic-aircraft-_2091

The first flight of the HTV-2 ended abruptly in April, 2010 after Defense Department monitors lost touch with the aircraft after nine minutes in the air. Months of intensive wind tunnel testing followed, and the flight path of the wedge-shaped carbon composite aircraft was altered, to keep it aloft for longer. But, if the initial estimates are accurate, the second test didn’t last much longer than the first.

“Yes, we got this wonderful data set from the two flights. Yes, you can cross-reference it with the wind tunnel data,” the source familiar with HTV-2 says. “Whether that’s worth $308 million, I’m not so sure.”

Darpa fueled the anticipation for the launch for months. Dugan talked up HTV-2 at technology conferences. In an unusual move for the sometimes-secretive agency, Darpa live-tweeted the countdown (doubling its number of followers in less than a week).

“T-16 minutes: ‘ALL STATIONS REPORT GO‘” read one tweet. A stream of upbeat messages followed about the vehicle’s progress over the next hour.

Then, suddenly, came word that things were going wrong.

“Range assets have lost telemetry with #HTV2. More to follow.”

The Pentagon may now turn to other technologies for its “Prompt Global Strike” mission: perhaps nuclear missiles, repurposed with conventional warheads; perhaps next-gen cruise missiles that fly six times the speed of sound. Or maybe, despite the HTV-2 second premature splashdown, the Mach 20 missile effort may continue.

“We know how to boost the aircraft to near space. We know how to insert the aircraft into atmospheric hypersonic flight. We do not yet know how to achieve the desired control during the aerodynamic phase of flight,” Darpa program manager Maj. Chris Schulz said in a statement. “It’s vexing; I’m confident there is a solution. We have to find it.”

[buglerbilly]

DATE:11/08/11

SOURCE:Flight International

US defence sector looks nervously at budget cuts

By Stephen Trimble

Military aircraft programmes have emerged as a prime target in a political deal to raise the US debt ceiling, at the expense of finding at least $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years.

Moodys Investors Service has warned in a new report that the Lockheed Martin F-35 joint strike fighter and Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey are among the most vulnerable budget-cutting targets.

Moodys' report echoes austerity proposals published over the last year by a diverse group of think-tanks and policy commissions, including the White House-sponsored National Commission on Fiscal Reform and Responsibility.


© Lockheed Martin
A new report states that the Lockheed Martin F-35 and the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey are among the most vulnerable budget-cutting targets

A review of eight such proposals issued since last June reveals that only the F-35 and V-22 were singled out for cuts among military aviation programmes.

Only one proposal issued by the Sustainable Defense Task Force suggested also deferring the KC-X tanker programme.

The V-22 may be in a particularly vulnerable position. A five-year production contract expires in January 2013, allowing the Department of Defense the option of signing a new multi-year deal, converting the contract to annualised awards or even cancelling the programme.

It is likely, however, that more aviation programmes than just the F-35 and V-22 could face budget cutbacks if the most severe scenario created by the debt ceiling deal is implemented.

That deal creates two rounds of budget cuts - the first is a set of mandatory spending caps on discretionary spending, with the DoD's budget slashed by $330 billion over 10 years, according to analysis by the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Affairs (CSBA).

Those cuts had been anticipated by the DoD's ongoing strategic review, said Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

Earlier this year, the DoD had already adopted an "efficiencies initiative" aimed at slashing costs by $178 billion over the next five years.

But the real concern for Panetta and defence contractors alike is if the second round of budget cuts is implemented.


© USAF

If that round fails to yield at least $1.2 trillion in spending cuts by January 2013, the budget is automatically reduced by that amount over 10 years.

The so-called "sequester mechanism", if adopted, would wipe more than $900 billion off the defence budget over 10 years - a 16% cut compared to current plans, according to CSBA.

In fiscal 2013 alone, the base defence budget would plummet by $99 billion to $472 billion.

Some defence experts have observed that such a cut merely reduces the base defence budget to the spending levels of four years ago.

"I do not recall anyone declaring our national security being 'imperilled' at that spending level in 2007," said Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Centre for Defense Information.

However, top DoD officials are less sanguine about the effects if the trigger mechanism is enacted.

Panetta, a former White House budget director, called it a "doomsday mechanism".

"If it happened and God willing, that would not be the case but if it did happen, it would result in a further round of very dangerous cuts across the board, defence cuts that I believe would do real damage to our security," Panetta said.

The sequester mechanism is so harsh that is seldom used. A similar device was embedded in previous deficit-slashing legislation in the mid-1980s, but lawmakers were never forced to trigger the sequester mechanism.

On the other hand, political dysfunction in Congress now runs high, with a series of forced crises required to pass a budget and raise the debt ceiling.

The CSBA analysis recommends that the DoD start contingency planning for the possibility that the sequester mechanism is triggered in January 2013.

Even if Panetta's worst-case scenario is avoided, the DoD still faces even deeper spending cuts if the joint committee can strike a deal on at least $1.2 trillion in additional budget reductions.

Most likely to be spared, according to Moody's, is the unmanned aircraft systems market, which could even be accelerated by the spending reductions.

For all programmes, the key to survival will be avoiding cost increases and schedule delays, the research service added.

[buglerbilly]

Grounded Stealth-Fighter Jocks Could Lose Clearance to Fly

By Noah Shachtman August 12, 2011 | 2:23 pm



The U.S. Air Force’s most advanced stealth fighters have been grounded for so long that pilots of the F-22 Raptors are starting to run the risk of being disqualified from flying their assigned planes.

Air Force requires pilots to fly a certain number of sorties in their aircraft every month, in order to stay fresh. If they don’t fly for 210 days, the pilots lose their “currency,” as it’s known in military jargon. Then, they have to be retrained on their jets, nearly from scratch.

Ordinarily, that’s a problem for an individual pilot when he gets sick, goes on leave, or takes a desk job somewhere. But now, the Air Force is facing the possibility of it happening to hundreds of their very best fighter pilots. And no amount of time in a flight simulator can fix that; fighter jocks need to fly in real cockpits to stay qualified.

“Today’s simulator visuals are quite good, but nothing can truly replicate the physiological difficulties of long range visual pick-up of tactical aircraft or ground targets in the ‘real’ world,” Air Combat Command spokeswoman Capt. Jennifer Ferrau tells Danger Room.

The entire fleet of F-22 Raptors — the world’s most advanced dogfighters — has been grounded since May 3, after problems were discovered with the planes’ oxygen systems. So, too, is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter fleet, which means that every stealth fighter in the U.S. inventory is currently out of commission.

The F-35s, at least, are expected to resume testing shortly. No one’s quite sure when the 165 Raptors (and their pilots) are coming back.

Instead of pumping in pure air, the F-22 was feeding its pilots lungloads of dangerous chemicals.

“Toxins found in pilots’ blood include oil fumes, residue from burned polyalphaolefin (PAO) antifreeze, and, in one case, propane,” reports Air Force Times’ Dave Majumdar. 14 pilots suffered “hypoxia-like symptoms.”

Some are even blaming the oxygen system in the fatal crash of an F-22 in November.

All of which means that Raptor pilots are stuck on the ground until further notice.

“The guys are getting antsy,” Lt. Col. Jason Hinds, director of operations for the 27th Fighter Squadron, told the Daily Press of Newport News, Virginia, last month.

Time in the simulator doesn’t relieve the stir-craziness. For one thing, it doesn’t resolve the pilots’ currency issues, Ferrau notes in an e-mail. Unlike commercial pilots, Air Force fighter jocks can’t use simulated takeoffs and landings to keep them current.

“The simulator is a controlled environment, while live fly includes the stress of heat, sweat, vibration, G force, blinding sun, motion of three-dimensional flight, uncertainties while flying in a crowded airspace and maybe most important — mortality,” she says. “You can run out of fuel and put the sim on ‘freeze’ but you cannot stop live flight to avoid a dangerous situation.”

Also, the waiting list to get into an F-22 simulator is getting rather long. There are only two Raptor sim complexes — one at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, the other in Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida. Each complex has four ersatz cockpits. Pilots from as far away from Alaska and Hawaii are coming to the East Coast to use the facilities.

“For the next three months, we’ve got people booked to come here to operate in our simulators,” Capt. Travis Passey, training flight commander in the Operational Support Squadron, told the Daily Press.

Restoring currency to the Raptor pilot cadre could take months, once it’s lost. First, instructor pilots will have to re-qualify, through a combination of ground trial, test flights and time in an Air Force classroom. Then, they’d train a small number of pilots, who would get the others up to speed.

It’s not the first time the Air Force has faced a currency issue; in 2007 and 2008, previously undiscovered manufacturing errors kept 182 early model F-15s on the shelves.

But the F-22’s woes are part of a larger issue facing the military, one House Republican aide said. “The real problem is the effect all these defense cuts have on technical military training,” he notes.

“The Navy uses simulators in place of machines. It’s turned into a boondoggle. The Air Force is now having to rely more on simulators, too,” he said. “If you have only one simulator in say, a National Guard unit, how can you practice formation flying? Precision strike? This is where Obama’s defense cuts are killing us: military training and readiness.”

Perhaps. But, at the moment, losing the world’s most advanced and expensive fighter jets — priced at $411 million each, including R&D costs — isn’t exactly inhibiting the U.S. military as it fights wars around the globe.

The Air Force decided long ago to keep the F-22 out of Iraq and Afghanistan. The jet has also been missing from the air assault of Libya: there are no Raptors based in Europe, and the F-22 doesn’t have the ability to transmit data to other aircraft — only to other Raptors.

Even when it’s in the sky, this most evolved of jets is notable for its limitations.

Photo: USAF

[buglerbilly]

Officials Conduct Study of Aircraft Oxygen Generation Systems

(Source: U.S Air Force; issued August 15, 2011)

Why is it I get the impression nobody is reacting very quickly to this matter? What a clusterf#*k!

WASHINGTON --- Air Force officials continue to conduct an Aircraft Oxygen Generation study, with members of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board taking the leading role.

Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley directed the quick look study in the wake of recent F-22 Raptor incidents.

Officials seek to identify a common thread among the incidents and will report their findings to senior Air Force leaders to help prevent such incidents from occurring in the future.

In a July 13 memorandum to the secretary of defense, Secretary Donley noted that pilots flying the F-22 have reported in-flight, physiological events at a rate three times higher than crews from other similar aircraft. The symptoms are similar to those resulting from an inadequate oxygen supply which affected the performance of the pilots experiencing them in varied ways.

"The Air Force takes flying-related incidents seriously. We met with leaders, operators and maintainers in the F-22 community to talk about the Scientific Advisory Board's oxygen generation study," said Lt. Gen. "Hawk" Carlisle, the deputy chief of staff for Operations, Plans and Requirements, Headquarters U.S. Air Force. "As part of the meeting we were able to provide the latest information on the status of the study and address their concerns regarding a timely return to fly."

"This board is the secretary's brain trust," said Lt. Col. Matthew Zuber, the Air Force SAB executive director. "It utilizes the nation's best scientists and engineers to advise Air Force senior leadership on science and technology issues."

The SAB, composed of special government employees, works with Air Force officials to conduct three to five studies per year and advises the secretary and the chief of staff on the findings, Zuber said.

Zuber added the Air Force has expanded the scope of the scientific investigation beyond the F-22 to include such platforms as the F-35 Lightning II, T-6A Texan II, F-16 Fighting Falcon and the A-10 Thunderbolt II. The study has incorporated extensive ground testing and limited flight testing as well.

The SAB study panel investigation is supported by the F-22 System Program Office, the Air Force Safety Center, industry partners, Naval Air Systems Command and Air Force Research Labs.

"We're all in the same room and not holding back any effort to determine whether these events are related to hypoxia, air contaminants or other factors," Zuber said, adding that no possibilities have been eliminated.

This particular investigation, Zuber explained, involves a strong fact-finding analysis with deliberation among a cross-section of experts.

The study will benefit from technical data generated by flight test activities conducted at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., laboratory tests conducted by Air Force Research Labs, and contractor personnel, he said.

"The zero-risk solution is not to fly, and that's not a long-term option; it's an inherently dangerous business to fly and fight wars," Zuber said. "We want to make sure we mitigate risks to a level that's appropriate for the urgency of the mission."

The SAB AOG study plans to provide the Air Force secretary and Air Force chief of staff interim reports prior to the final report projected for later this fall. Once complete, the product will be releasable to the general public.

Until the report is submitted, it would be inappropriate to speculate on potential outcomes of the study, Zuber said.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Lockheed Martin Delivers Third Production C-5M Super Galaxy to U.S. Air Force

(Source: Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company; issued August 24, 2011)

MARIETTA, Ga. --- Lockheed Martin completed delivery today of the third production C-5M Super Galaxy to the U.S. Air Force.

The sixth C-5M overall to be delivered to the Air Force, this aircraft will undergo internal paint restoration at Stewart Air National Guard Base, N.Y., before traveling to its permanent home at Dover AFB, Del.

In July, the C-5M Super Galaxy became the first U.S. airlifter to perform a polar overflight direct from Dover AFB to Afghanistan.

Lockheed Martin is on contract to modernize a total of 52 C-5s, consisting of 49 B-, two C- and one A-model aircraft through the Reliability Enhancement and Re-Engining Program (RERP). The program incorporates more than 70 changes and upgrades, including newer, quieter General Electric engines making the C-5M more reliable and 10 percent more fuel efficient than legacy C-5s.

The Super Galaxy is America's premier global direct delivery weapon system and the only strategic airlifter capable of linking the homeland directly to the warfighter in all theaters of combat without refueling. The C-5M recently delivered 3,300 tons of helicopters to Afghanistan with a mission capable rate of nearly 90 percent.

The C-5M's demonstrated improvements in performance and efficiency validate the value to the taxpayer of modernizing proven and viable aircraft. The C-5 can carry twice the cargo of other strategic airlift systems and is the only strategic airlifter capable of carrying 100 percent of certified air-transportable cargo.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 126,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The Corporation's 2010 sales from continuing operations were $45.8 billion.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

The Air Force’s B-2 deception

By Philip Ewing Monday, August 29th, 2011 12:59 pm



An Air Force B-2 Spirit sat idle on Guam for more than a year after an engine fire that officials first characterized as ‘minor,’ then revealed last week was so ‘horrific’ it will sideline the bomber for two more years. The story shows commanders’ sensitivities about tipping their hand too much about their strategic posture in the Western Pacific, but it also raises questions about just how ready the B-2 fleet actually is.

An Air Force official story last week described how the fire aboard the B-2 ‘Spirit of Washington’ was so destructive that the bird required extensive repairs and components normally installed during depot-level maintenance. And 18 months of work didn’t put it back on duty: It only got the B-2 to the point that it could limp from Guam to Palmdale, Calif., where it landed Aug. 16 for two years’ more work before it can rejoin the fleet. The Air Force’s story treated the airmen and Northrop Grumman engineers who brought the B-2 home as heroes, but still made it sound like a dicey proposition:


Once the aircraft was ready to again take the skies, the entire team outlined a comprehensive plan to fly the aircraft home. They established very strict controls on weight, altitude, and speed to lessen stress on the airframe. In-flight refueling was used to prevent ever having to take on the weight of a full load of fuel and a support aircraft followed along to assist the flight crew with avoiding turbulent weather and coordinate with air traffic control.

“The 141st Air Refueling Wing (ANG) deployed to Guam from Fairchild, Washington, and provided KC-135s for refueling and to serve as a support plane,” Colonel Williams said. “That allowed us to put a team of Northrop engineers in the support plane where they could monitor the aircraft’s performance and offer technical advice to deal with any issues.”

Fortunately for all, this “wounded warrior” took to the skies like the proverbial phoenix traveling the entire distance without incident and landing in Palmdale more than a month ahead of schedule. It now starts a 24 month [Programmed Depot Maintenance] process that will completely return this veteran to operational duty for the 509th Bomb Wing at Whiteman AFB, Mo.

So — for more than a year, the Air Force was without one of its 20 B-2s, even though it physically remained ‘forward’ at the base from which it’s supposed to be ready for tasking. And although the service did announce the Spirit of Washington’s engine fire when it happened, it never made clear that the ‘minor’ mishap had put the bomber out of service.

Not surprising, given how secret the B-2s are and the strategic sensitivities in the Western Pacific, but it makes you wonder: Air Force Global Strike Command is supposed to be improving its ‘culture’ and getting serious about its strategic mission. What else should we know that its cloak of secrecy enables it not to tell?

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/08/29/the-air-forces-b-2-deception/#ixzz1WSm9voKv
DoDBuzz.com

[buglerbilly]

Squadron Established to Train Air Forces in Africa

August 29, 2011

Stars and Stripes|by John Vandiver

STUTTGART, Germany -- A squadron of airmen with key skill sets, including air traffic control and civil engineering, is preparing for a mission to train air forces in Africa to deliver supplies and large numbers of troops into conflict zones.

The New Jersey-based 818th Mobility Support Advisory Squadron was established in April and is expected to become operational later this year in support of U.S. Africa Command, according to Air Force officials.

The squadron, which operates under the 621st Contingency Response Wing at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, will provide training in loading peacekeepers onto aircraft, setting up air traffic control and using aerial intelligence gathering tactics, officials said.

"It is going to be very useful. We've struggled in the past a little bit by not having assigned forces," said Col. David Poage, director of plans and strategy for the 17th Air Force, based in Ramstein, Germany. "It's a step in the right direction."

While not formally assigned to AFRICOM, the squadron has been formed to conduct missions primarily in Africa, with a focus on building the air mobility capacity of African militaries, Poage said. The training, which doesn't involve flight instruction, covers the support skills required to deliver resources and personnel to remote locations.

Though missions have yet to be doled out, the main focus will likely be on lending assistance to nations that have militaries taking part in United Nations and African Union peacekeeping missions, such as the current AU mission in Somalia, Poage said.

Since April, the 818th squadron unit has been developing skills as teachers and mentors; learning French, spoken in many African countries; and getting crash courses in the cultures of the region, according to its commander, Lt. Col. Thom Adkins.

In addition, the squadron is getting training in high-threat driving techniques and self-defense.

"When all is said and done we'll have 76 trained airmen," Adkins said.

The formation of an Africa-focused squadron is yet another sign that the military is looking to do more in Africa. In recent months, AFRICOM has added an Africa-focused Navy Special Warfare Unit, and the Marines have authorized a task force focused on training militaries to counterterrorist groups across the northern part of the continent and around the Horn of Africa.

"We see value in the development of units and organizations that have institutional familiarity with Africa's unique regional issues, as well as an ability to develop relationships with partners," Ken Fidler, an AFRICOM spokesman, said in a prepared statement.

Meanwhile, the New Jersey airmen are looking forward to getting their orders, Adkins said.

"The environment in my squadron is definitely of high enthusiasm," Adkins said. "We can't wait to get started."

[buglerbilly]

Old Weapons, New Tricks

Sep 1, 2011

By David A. Fulghum



As intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance expands into new sections of the electromagnetic spectrum, new capabilities are emerging – often within existing programs – to take on missions in cyber, electronic and information warfare.

Two weapons are illustrative: the high-speed, anti-radiation missile (HARM) that was designed to kinetically kill surface-to-air missile (SAM) sites, and the miniature air-launched decoy (MALD) that entices SAMs into revealing their positions electronically. To meet new military requirements, the missions of both are expected to expand, particularly in the areas of electronic and network attack.

The plain-vanilla MALD is basically a decoy. The payload allows it to replicate various targets depending on what the aircrew wants to simulate. The missile already is a required asset. It became operational in March 2010 on F-16s and B-52s.

“On the B-52, the Air Force has integrated it into the Smart 1760 [electrical] bus so an operator or intelligence specialist can sit in the B-52 and reprogram MALD in flight,” says Geoff White, business development manager for Raytheon’s MALD-J project. “He can launch it to fly a certain profile and trigger specific SAMs and electronic-warfare radars. You can then collect intelligence about the type and location of the IAD elements or go for a hard kill [with weapons like the HARM].”

Navy Interest

The Navy also is interested in MALD, and the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is the likely airframe of choice. As planners look at attack-jamming devices, MALD is attractive because it can be released to conduct independent missions at stand-in ranges. It weighs less than 300 lb. with 80 lb. of fuel in it. It has a range of about 500 mi. or it can orbit for more than 2 hr.

The interest shown by the Air Force and Navy extends to an electronic-jamming variant, the MALD-J, that is to enter the Air Force arsenal in late 2012.

Perhaps more intriguing is that Raytheon intends to market the MALD-V, which is designed to carry a generic warhead that buyers can pack with their own payloads. The company has launched a study of electronic- and communications-attack payloads using high-power microwave or radio-frequency burst devices. It also has acquired companies that specialize in those areas.

“The truck is called the MALD-V,” White says. “You can put whatever you want in it. Some of the agnostic payloads that our international customers might be interested in include jamming devices, seekers, data links, communications relays or surveillance equipment. The most it can carry in its 2-foot-by-10-inch payload bay is about 50 pounds.”

MALD’s small size makes it hard to detect. It can take advantage of physics by getting much closer to a target than a manned aircraft or a larger unmanned airframe that is easier to track on radar. This makes it ideal for many missions, including attacking electronics with bursts of electromagnetic energy that can disable, disrupt or damage sensors, radars and computers. It fills the gap between a short-range, unpowered glide bomb and a long-range cruise missile. It operates up to 35,000 ft., and flies at speeds of Mach 0.2-0.9.

HARM also is expected to carry non-kinetic, directed-energy-type warheads as an anti-electronic weapon. An upgrade, the HARM Control Section Modification, is under way.

“What it brings to the table is enhanced [accuracy through] integrating GPS and an improved IMU [inertial measurement unit],” says David Young, HARM business development manager. “It would have the ability to reduce collateral damage and fratricide. We demonstrated that HARM could be upgraded to address low-power emitters, which addresses some of the shutdown tactics that [integrated air defenses] can employ.

[I]Photo: USAF

[buglerbilly]

Problem Unsolved, F-22s to Return to Flight: Sources

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 31 Aug 2011 22:48

The U.S. Air Force is planning to lift the four-month grounding of its F-22 Raptor fleet, although it has yet to figure out what went wrong in the aircraft's oxygen system, sources said.


U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptors fly over the Nevada Test and Training Range in March. The Air Force plans to lift the four-month grounding of the Raptor fleet, according to sources. (Senior Airman Brett Clashman / Air Force)

Service officials will meet Sept. 2 to determine what restrictions will remain on the planes, the culmination of a lively debate between various factions in the Raptor community, sources said.

The service grounded the twin-engine fifth-generation fighter on May 3 after pilots reported 14 incidents of "hypoxia-like" symptoms. According to one former F-22 pilot, toxic chemicals were found in the bloodstreams of the affected aviators.

Investigators have yet to ascertain the cause of the problem with the Raptors' On-Board Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS).

"They haven't pinpointed it," one source said. "But they feel that the risk is mitigated enough to stop the grounding while they continue to see what can be done to solve the problem."

Idled F-22 pilots have been working hard in simulators and training aircraft, but their skills have atrophied during their months-long exile from their cockpits.

The service is also responding to media coverage of the grounding, which has prevented the planes, among other things, from participating in the NATO campaign against Libyan government forces.

"Mainly, they have pressure to fly the jet to stop the bad press about the $100-plus- million static displays," the source said.

In a recent interview with Air Force Magazine, Air Force chief of staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said that the F-22 would be flying soon. Schwartz also said he expects a report next week from his service's Scientific Advisory Board, which has been investigating the OBOGS problem. That report will help determine the service's course of action.

"This report, in conjunction with the results of ongoing safety investigation and recent flight tests, will provide in-depth technical analysis, data, and recommendations for improved flight operations," Lt. Col. Sam Highley, a spokesman for Schwartz, said in an email to Defense News. "While the Air Force continues to work diligently toward an expedient return to flight operations, the stand-down of the F-22 fleet will continue until senior leadership can ensure we mitigate risks to a level that's appropriate for the urgency of the mission."

Highley also confirmed that the recent waiver granted to the 1st Fighter Wing to escape a recent hurricane was a dress rehearsal for when the F-22s return normal operations.

Once the Raptors return to flight, the service will likely require the jets to be moved from their hangars before their engines are started. An indoor buildup of carbon monoxide from the jets' exhaust may have contributed to the problems.

That would give the Air Force some remaining warm-weather weeks or months "to get to the real problem solved and figure out proper hangar operations" before cold weather makes such operations more inconvenient, the source said.

Sources said the oxygen system problem may be a valve that is failing to keep toxins out of the system's zeolyte beds, which help draw oxygen from the ambient air, sources said.

"The hangar and that valve introduce too many contaminants," one source said.

There is also a debate as to what post-grounding restrictions the jets will face. Some in the test community would like to restrict the F-22 to altitudes of 40,000 feet, but members of the operational community want to resume flying the aircraft's full flight envelope at up to 60,000 feet.

"Operational physiology doesn't support that restriction and it should be cleared for the full envelope because it would take a dual engine flameout coupled with a rapid decompression on a Raptor that has an OBOGS that isn't performing nominally," one source said. "The pilot would know this event occurred and would have proper emergency procedures that mean they pull the green ring [emergency oxygen supply] and descend."

Air Force physiologists say pilots would have mere seconds to react if such a case were to happen.

But the operational pilot community argues that the physiologists' methods don't reflect the real-life circumstances that aviators face in the cockpit and fail to take into account pressure breathing apparatus.

"The pilot would have been getting air with much more oxygen percentage and would continue to get air by pulling the green ring so that the Time of Useful Consciousness chart in physiology does not apply to this case," one source said. "The bro network is going full force to get the aircraft cleared to 60,000 feet."

[buglerbilly]

DATE:07/09/11

SOURCE:Flight International

Lockheed starts final assembly on last F-22A

By Stephen Trimble

Lockheed Martin has started final assembly on the last F-22A Raptor ordered by the US Air Force, but the delivered fleet remains grounded over concerns about the pilot's breathing system inside the cockpit.

Lockheed has mated the fuselage sections of the F-22A with USAF serial number 09-4195. In final assembly, the company's workers in Marietta, Georgia, will instal the wings, tails, landing gear and Pratt & Whitney F119 engines, among other avionics integration and check-out tasks.

The last of 195 aircraft ordered by the USAF, including 185 remaining operational airframes, is now scheduled for delivery early in the second quarter of 2012.

The updated schedule is delayed slightly from the company's plan last year to deliver the last F-22A before March. Lockheed halted deliveries to the USAF while the F-22 was ordered grounded by the Air Combat Command after 3 May.


© US Air Force

That order continued to be in effect after this article went to press, although the fleet's status could change quickly.

Although the fleet is technically grounded, some F-22As have been allowed to fly for specific reasons. As Hurricane Irene approached the US east coast in late August, the USAF scrambled F-22As and other fighters away from Langley AFB, Virginia.

USAF officials have confirmed that hypoxia was ruled out as a potential cause of the fatal F-22 crash at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, last November. The actual cause of the incident has not been released.

That unexplained crash and a string of reports of hypoxia illness prompted the USAF to voluntarily stand down the F-22A fleet. The service is continuing to study aircraft onboard oxygen generating systems (OBOGS) for the F-22A and several other aircraft, including the Lockheed F-35A.

The OBOGS investigation is led by a scientific advisory committee chaired by Gregory Martin, a retired USAF general and fighter pilot.

[buglerbilly]

Bleed-Air Problem Caused F-22 Crash: Sources

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 8 Sep 2011 16:47

The November 2010 crash of a U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor was caused by a malfunction with the aircraft engine's bleed air system, an industry source said. The pilot, Capt. Jeff "Bong" Haney of the 525th Fighter Squadron, was killed in the accident.


Members of the U.S. Air Force's 525th Aircraft Maintenance Unit work on an F-22 Raptor that just landed at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, in June 2009. The plane crashed in November 2010 in Alaska. (File photo / U.S. Air Force)

Another source, a pilot, confirmed that information. The fighter squadron is based in Alaska.

An Air Force accident report said the F-22, tail number 06-4125, had a bleed air problem that caused both the stealth fighter jet's Environmental Control System (ECS) and On-Board Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS) to automatically shut down, the sources said.

The report has been released to Air Force officials at Pacific Air Forces, but has not been made public, the industry source said. The F-22 fleet was grounded May 3 after pilots suffered more than a dozen hypoxia-like incidents while flying.

Lt. Col. John Dorrian, an Air Force spokesman wrote in an email, "The information provided by your 'industry source' is not a wholly accurate characterization of the crash. However, due to the ongoing Accident Investigation Board process I am not able to provide point-by-point confirmation, as the information is not yet releasable. PACAF is conducting the AIB process and will release appropriate information once the process is complete."

The bleed air system siphons off air from a jet engine's compressor section to generate power, supply oxygen and inert gases, and handle heating and cooling.

If the ECS and OBOGS shut down, the pilot would not have air coming into the cockpit, and would have to switch to his emergency oxygen supply and dive to 10,000 feet, another source said.

"If the ECS is out … there is no conditioned air pressure pushing through the OBOGS, so he would be sucking rubber," the source said. However, as the aircraft descended, "the cabin pressure would be gradually rising as long as the canopy was still intact completely," he said.

But Haney's F-22 never recovered from its dive. The twin-engine jet hit the ground, and it is unclear whether the pilot had switched to his emergency oxygen supply, the industry source said.

"The rate at which he descended, though, he would have been at a hypoxia-safe altitude within time to have not fully succumbed to hypoxia and should have only had symptoms versus unconsciousness," the pilot source said. "The green ring [emergency oxygen bottle] in the Raptor is a tough pull, and it was altered to give the pilot some pressure."

Activating the emergency oxygen system is tricky in the Raptor, the source continued.

"It is a double pull that has to be practiced and experienced a few times before you end up in that bad situation, or you will panic," he said.

The industry source said the report declared that the accident was not related to the OBOGS.

But there are skeptics who say the OBOGS can't be ruled out as a culprit.

"Around May, the aircrew were briefed that the mishap OBOGS unit was operating fine on [Haney's] flight," the pilot source said.

The source said that if the report's findings are accurate, though he is not convinced it is, it could be that other physiological factors with pilot's g-tolerance and the oxygen levels in his body could have played a role in the crash. Haney was attempting a maneuver called a "rejoin" and made a fairly aggressive turn during the procedure, the pilot source said.

"I would have done the same thing with a Raptor in my hands," he said. "It's just that if OBOGS and the whole ECS was working nominally, physiological stuff is what might have crept up on him and impaired his normal ability."

The pilot source said the investigation would have had to determine Haney's oxygen supply and g-tolerance in that exact instance, but a precise assessment would not have been possible because of the condition of the pilot after the crash.

"I don't see how you can absolutely rule out OBOGS by checking a smoked and crushed system and using what aircraft data was available based on a lack of an [Integrated Caution and Warning] showing unacceptable [oxygen] concentration or pressure," the pilot source said. "You have to look at what testing was done to call those concentration and pressure limits as good, and that goes back before the flight of Ship 4001," the first F-22 test plane.

Why Did Bleed Air Fail?

Questions remain as to the nature and cause of the bleed air system malfunction.

Hans Weber, who owns Tecop International, a San Diego-based aerospace consulting firm, said that while bleed air systems are ubiquitous, they are complex and occasionally malfunction.

"It's a fairly complicated system," said Weber, a former member of the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration's Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee. "So there can be failures in it."

Bleed air is very hot when it is sucked from the compressor; it goes through a series of heat exchangers to cool it to about 450 degrees Fahrenheit, he said. From there, it is further processed and cooled before it is used. Failures are rare, but they do happen, Weber said.

What is particularly worrisome is that aircraft bleed air systems have built-in safety gear, and whatever this malfunction was, it managed to overcome them, he said.

Further, Weber said that even if the OBOGS is exonerated in this incident, there have been more than a dozen hypoxia incidents. It is possible the problem is related to the other oxygen system incidents, he said.

"Might that apply to the others? Is this an outlier or at the core of the problem?" Weber asked.

[buglerbilly]

N.Korea Jammed U.S. Reconnaissance Plane GPS



A U.S. military reconnaissance aircraft made an emergency landing during annual South Korea-U.S. military exercises in March when North Korea jammed its GPS device, it emerged Thursday.

According to a report the Defense Ministry submitted to Democratic Party lawmaker Ahn Kyu-baek of the National Assembly's Defense Committee, the RC-7B took off from its base at 8:30 p.m. on March 4 but had to make an emergency landing about 45 minutes later due to disruption of its GPS functions by jamming signals transmitted from Haeju and Kaesong in North Korea at intervals of five to 10 minutes that afternoon.

The jamming signals also disrupted the GPS devices of coastal patrol boats and speed boats of the South Korean Navy. Several civilian aircraft in the Gimpo area were also affected.

The North deploys vehicle-mounted jammers that can disrupt signals within 50-100 km and is reportedly developing a jamming device capable of disrupting signals more than 100 km away.

englishnews@chosun.com / Sep. 09, 2011 09:05 KST

[buglerbilly]

Drones could provide updated intelligence on North Korean missile sites

By Seth Robson

Stars and Stripes

Published: September 12, 2011

TOKYO — The U.S. is negotiating with South Korea to fly the RQ-4 Global Hawk surveillance drone near the Demilitarized Zone, a move that could provide an unprecedented view of goings-on in reclusive North Korea and draw the ire of China.

Flown extensively in Afghanistan and Iraq for the past 10 years, the first Global Hawk arrived on Guam late last year and there are now three flying in the Asia Pacific theater.

South Korea is among a large group of nations in the region with whom U.S. officials are negotiating for flyover rights, according to Lt. Col. Terran Reneau, chief of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance for the 13th Air Force in Hawaii.

Reneau did not give a timetable for the negotiations with the South Koreans but added: “I think we are very close” to flying in Korea. South Korean officials would not comment on the Global Hawk issue.

Lt. Col. David Gerhardt, Pacific Air Forces’ chief of command and control, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance requirements, added: “Global Hawk will likely fly over land in Korea as soon as agreements have been solidified to do that.”

Gerhardt did not name other nations in negotiations over Global Hawk flyover rights but said those closest to Guam with potential emergency landing sites are among the first to be approached by the U.S.

South Korean media have also reported that Seoul is interested in buying its own Global Hawks, which carry long-range and infrared cameras, RADAR and listening devices that can intercept foreign military signals.

According to the aircraft’s manufacturer, Northrop Grumman, the Global Hawk flies at 60,000 feet and has a line of sight to targets more than 340 miles away. The range of the aircraft’s cameras and sensors is classified but the line of sight from a Global Hawk flying near the DMZ would extend well beyond the Yalu River that marks North Korea’s border with China.

The drone, conceived in 1995 as a replacement for the U-2 spy plane, will enable U.S. intelligence agencies to update databases on military movement and missile sites in North Korea, said retired Air Force Col. Ralph Cossa, who is the president of the Pacific Forum Center for Strategic and International Studies in Hawaii.

Of particular interest to U.S. intelligence officers is North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons. In 2006 the regime, which has a long track record of using terrorism and unprovoked military attacks on its neighbors, announced that it had tested a nuclear bomb.

Once approved to use the South’s airways, the Global Hawk’s cameras could focus on places where experts believe the North might be developing weapons of mass destruction.

“One never knows what Pyongyang is up to, and watching sudden moves could provide an indication of an impending provocative action,” Cossa said.

North Korea’s record of violent provocation is long and varied. Last year a North Korean torpedo sank the South Korean navy ship Cheonan, killing 46 sailors. In November, North Korean artillery shelled South Korea’s Yeonpyeong island, killing four.

The North Koreans and their Chinese neighbors won’t be happy about the presence of the Global Hawk so close to their borders, Cossa said.

“The Chinese in particular are raising concerns about U.S. reconnaissance off their coast,” Cossa said. “At least Global Hawk is more out of sight and [has] greater stand-off range, which might make it appear less provocative ... but will still hurt the feelings of 1.3 billion Chinese people who resent being spied upon.”

In July, China’s Defense Ministry demanded an end to the U.S. military surveillance flights near China, according to a report in the Global Times newspaper, which is part of the Communist Party-controlled news media.

“We demand that the U.S. respect China’s sovereignty and security interests, and take concrete measures to boost a healthy and stable development of military relations,” the ministry said.

The Chinese demand followed revelations that two Chinese Su-27 jets chased a U-2 aircraft over the Taiwan Strait on June 29, and that one jet crossed over the dividing line between Taiwan and the mainland along the 100-mile-wide waterway.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen told the Washington Times that he discussed the reconnaissance flights during a visit to China and at earlier talks in Washington with Chinese Gen. Chen Bingde, chief of the general staff.

“This is international airspace in this case, and we won’t be deterred from flying in international airspace,” Mullen was quoted as saying in the newspaper.

Mullen said halting the reconnaissance flights and giving in to Chinese demands would violate long-established international rules for freedom of navigation.

“The Chinese would see us move out of there,” he said. “I don’t see that as the case. We’re not going to do that, from my perspective. These reconnaissance flights are important.”

Not surprisingly, the Chinese appear to be working on their own version of the Global Hawk. Photographs of a Chinese drone — dubbed the Xianglong, which bears a striking resemblance to Northop Grumman’s aircraft — were posted in June on websites that monitor the Chinese military.

[I]robsons@pstripes.osd.mil

[buglerbilly]

Northrop, BAE To Team for USAF T-X Work

Sep 16, 2011

By Amy Butler abutler@aviationweek.com
WASHINGTON



BAE Systems is teaming with Northrop Grumman to propose its Hawk trainer for a forthcoming U.S. Air Force competition to replace the T-38C fast-jet trainer.

The team plans to announce their partnership on Sept. 19 at the annual Air Force Association conference, according to industry officials.

Competitors are likely to include Lockheed Martin/Korea Aerospace Industries’ T-50 and Alenia Aermacchi’s M346.

It is unclear yet whether BAE or Northrop Grumman will serve as prime contractor. However, an industry source noted that the latter’s piece of work will be run out of the company’s technical services division. This could indicate that its workshare will focus on the ground-based training and support pieces of the bid. During the Paris air show this summer, BAE officials indicated they intend to be the prime contractor of the bid. In contrast, Alenia says it is considering taking on a U.S. prime.

BAE officials declined to confirm the partnership, pending Monday’s press conference.

The service plans to buy up to 350 T-X aircraft as well as ground-based simulation aids in what it says will be an end-to-end training system.

[buglerbilly]

337 TES tests B-1 maritime readiness

Posted 9/19/2011 Updated 9/19/2011

by Airman Charles V. Rivezzo
7th Bomb Wing Public Affairs


Airmen from the 337th Test and Evaluation Squadron prepare for their flight to test maritime readiness at the Gulf of Mexico Sept. 15, 2011 at Dyess Air Force Base, Texas. The 337 TES will embark on a first-ever test of a B-1 Bomber’s maritime capabilities with laser-guided weaponry testing range in the Gulf of Mexico. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Jonathan Stefanko/ Released)

9/19/2011 - DYESS AIR FORCE BASE, Texas -- As the sun began to rise across the horizon Sept. 15, the 337th Test and Evaluation Squadron embarked on a first-ever test of a B-1 Bomber's maritime capabilities with laser-guided weaponry at a testing range in the Gulf of Mexico.

Racing across the skies high above the gulf, the long-range bombers successfully dropped ten Joint Direct Attack Munitions onto High Speed Maneuverable Surface Targets, each remotely controlled by Global Positioning Satellite and forward looking cameras for steering and navigation.

Munitions dropped included two 500-pound laser-guided GBU 54s, six 500-pound GPS guided GBU-38s and two 2,000-pound GPS guided GBU-31s, as well as one 2,000-pound unguided BDU 56.

"Successfully accomplishing this test proves the B-1 can deny our enemies the ability to operate in either the ground or maritime domain, whether stationary or moving," said Lt. Col. George Holland, 337 TES commander. "With range, payload, persistence and an increased capability to attack movers, the B-1 has the versatility that combatant commander need to deter or deny our enemies."

The sole purpose of the mission was to assess the tactics, techniques and procedures for the B-1 to engage maritime surface targets using its latest software, the sniper pod, as well as to collect data on the attack of moving maritime targets with guided and unguided weaponry.

The sniper pod provides aircrew on-board video to help identify between friendly and enemy forces and gives pinpoint coordinates of enemy targets. The pod also possesses streaming capability, which provides B-1 operators the ability to downlink the video captured by the pod to allow personnel on the ground to see exactly what the bomber crew saw.

"It's an aging aircraft but it's obviously more than capable, especially with the addition of the sniper pod," said 1st Lt. Diane Barney, 53rd Test Management Group, Detachment 3 engineer. "We have put more bombs on target than any other airframe at a fraction of the sorties flown, and there's something to say about that."

Currently, the B-1 is the only aircraft in the bomber community to successfully conduct maritime testing with a laser-guided JDAM using the sniper pod.

"The B-1 maritime operational test demonstrated the increased B-1 capabilities in the areas of maritime air support and maritime interdiction," said Maj. Andrew Pernell, 337 TES B-1 maritime test project officer. "This kind of testing will help develop tactics, techniques and procedures that the B-1 can use to successfully integrate its new capabilities into an expanded maritime role."

Successful completion of maritime testing has only added to the B-1's already extensive resume. Having been battle tested and battle proven, the B-1 has flown more than 70 percent of bomber combat missions since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001.

While the B-1 continues to be an aging aircraft, it has made its presence known throughout the last quarter century of warfare.

"Most of our aircraft are approaching 30 years. I like to tell my guys, 30 is the new 20. And in many ways, this is true as we continually upgrade our aircraft with both sustainment and capability modifications," Holland said.

The 337 TES is a geographically separated unit of the 53rd Wing. The squadron is located at Dyess AFB, Texas.

[buglerbilly]

U.S. Air Force Clears F-22 Fleet For Flight

Sep 19, 2011

By Jen DiMascio jennifer_dimascio@aviationweek.com
WASHINGTON



The U.S. Air Force is putting the F-22 back to work as of Sept. 21 with a new plan for making sure pilots have enough oxygen, Capitol Hill was told early Sept. 19.

The Raptor fleet has been grounded since May 3 because pilots were showing symptoms of hypoxia. The Air Force Scientific Advisory Board investigating the problem has not pinpointed a “single, definitive root cause” of the symptoms, according to a release provided to Congress. Rather, investigators are looking at multiple factors to explain why the onboard oxygen-generation system (Obogs) does not deliver air to the pilot as it should.

To work around the problem, the Air Force is drawing on a 2007 plan to reconstitute the F-15C fleet. The service is beefing up aircraft inspections, adding training and protective gear, providing physiological testing to pilots and continuing to study the problem. “Some flight restrictions will be in place for a short period as pilots regain proficiency,” according to the notice to lawmakers.

The advisory board is continuing to “resolve remaining issues,” and a final report is expected later this fall.

An Obogs problem is considered the most likely cause for the Nov. 16, 2010, crash of a 525th Fighter Sqdn. F-22 operating from Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska. The pilot did not eject and was killed, and the aircraft left a deep crater suggestive of a steep-angle, high-speed impact, Aviation Week reported in July.

The Obogs on the F-22 is made by Honeywell in the U.K., and systems fitted to the F/A-18 are produced in the U.S. by Cobham. (Cobham acquired the unit in 2003 \that was previously Bendix, then Litton and subsequently Northrop Grumman.) However, they work on the same principle, passing engine bleed air through a molecular-sieve oxygen generator that absorbs nitrogen and other gases and delivers near-pure oxygen to the pilot.

The Air Force has been tight-lipped — or at least officially from the top — about the situation all year. The grounding, juxtaposed with Western operations in Libya — where the Raptor was once eyed for use in its first kinetic combat environment — is leading to further scrutiny in Washington about the high-profile program.

USAF photo

[buglerbilly]

U.S. Must Keep Nuke Triad, F-35, Satellites, Tanker: Air Force Secretary

By Colin Clark

Published: September 19, 2011



National Harbor: Air Force Secretary Mike Donley pledged today to keep all three legs of America's nuclear triad, arguing that the rise of new nuclear powers makes the air, sea and land legs even more important.

"We must maintain the nuclear triad," he said, drawing a tiny smattering of applause -- the only spontaneous applause -- from the standing-room-only audience at the Air Force Association's annual conference. Donley's comments come as debate increases in the nuclear priesthood about whether the land-based portion of the triad is really needed. Debate about whether the new long-range bomber is needed has also been vigorous, with retired Gen. Hoss Cartwright, former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, recently saying he had not been convinced of the need for a manned platform.

What was most remarkable about Donley's speech was that, while he acknowledged the difficult budget debate, he essentially pledged to keep doing almost everything the Air Force already does.

He did include this caveat: "To get these savings we will need to accept greater risk in some areas, terminate some lower priority programs, streamline others, continue driving efficiency in our operations, and make some tough choices about the core tenets of our national security strategy."

Then he proceeded to make almost no choices, unless you count keeping what you've already got as a choice. And, of course, it is one. Here's what Donley said about capabilities. First off, it's all about something he called "balance." That means keeping "air superiority" -- Lockheed Martin got a resounding vote of confidence for the F-35 -- "precision air-to-ground attack," Special Forces, C4 (command, control, communication and computers), the KC-46 airborne tanker, drones, and a host of space capabilities including missile warning, ISR, GPS, weather and space tracking capabilities.

His wrap-up: "There is no question we face difficult choices, but with these priorities firmly in mind, we can still advance Air Force capabilities in important areas, such as fielding the F-35, the KC-46, a new Long Range strike bomber, key satellites and other systems."

So tune in after the congressional Super Committee finishes its work and we'll see what the Air Force Secretary has to say then.

[buglerbilly]

Global Hawk Ground Station Goes Global

By Carlo Munoz

Published: September 19, 2011



Washington: What began as a plan to get the Air Force and Navy versions of the Global Hawk unmanned aerial system under a single control station is now going worldwide, a top industry official said today.

The new common ground station being designed by Northrop Grumman for the Navy's Broad Area Maritime Surveillance UAS and Air Force's Global Hawk will now be able to control the NATO version and other international variants of the plane, according to George Guerra, the company's vice president for high altitude long endurance systems.

The Air Force is set to release a formal proposals request for the first phase of development for the ground station by the end of this month, he said. A draft version of the proposal is already under review by Northrop program officials, Guerra added.

That said, company engineers are already working a set of open-ended approaches for the new common control station. Those open-ended approaches will make the ground station able to control Air Force, Navy and NATO-owned Global Hawks, Guerra told reporters during the Air Force Association's annual symposium here.

Northrop officials are in the final stages of closing the NATO deal, in which the alliance will use the Global Hawk as the basis for its new Alliance Ground Surveillance program, Guerra said.

Along with the services and NATO, these new control station will also be able to meet the "unique requirements" of foreign militaries who are looking to get the Global Hawk into their arsenals.

Most recently, the Air Force and their counterparts in the South Korean military are reviewing a formal letter of agreement to sell four Block 30 versions of the Global Hawk to the Asian nation, Guerra said.

The Australian and Japanese militaries are also in informal talks with the Pentagon and the services on possible bulk buys of both Navy and Air Force versions of the Global Hawk.

If finalized, those South Korean, Japanese and Australian Global Hawks will also be controlled from those new ground station is well, Guerra said.

In July, the Joint Staff told Navy and Air Force leaders tied to the Global Hawk program that getting a common ground station up and running was their top priority. Northrop had been working with Naval Air Systems Command on creating a common control system, but NAVAIR canceled that program in February

[buglerbilly]

AgustaWestland Poised to Support U.S. Air Force

(Source: AgustaWestland North America; issued September 19, 2011)

RESTON, Va. --- AgustaWestland North America, Inc. proudly enters the Air Force Association's 2011 Air & Space Conference and Technology Exposition firmly committed to the U.S. Air Force with the right helicopters for the mission and the right talent for the job.

AW139M: More helicopter for the dollar



AgustaWestland customized its multi-role AW139 medium-twin helicopter, creating the advanced military AW139M for the U.S. Air Force's Common Vertical Lift Support Platform (CVLSP). A year ago, the company showcased its AW139M cabin demonstrator at AFA; today the AW139M helicopter stands on display with 100 flight hours on the aircraft. The AW139M reached further milestones in its development, now fully integrated with proven U.S. military technology such as its aircraft survivability equipment.

"AgustaWestland made the investment to develop this modern, off-the-shelf helicopter for the U.S. CVLSP security mission," said R. Scott Rettig, chief executive officer of AgustaWestland North America. "We believe the AW139M provides the most fiscally responsible option while allowing aircrews to fly faster, farther and safer for the mission."

Manufactured at the company's Philadelphia, Pa. facility, the AW139M includes a high-definition FLIR, self protection equipment including infrared detection and countermeasures, avionics and heavy duty landing gear. For military missions, the AW139M features a low thermal and acoustic signature and all-weather capabilities for use in challenging environments such as the U.S. Air Force's northern-tier missile bases.

AgustaWestland Adds to its Expertise

AgustaWestland is pleased to have retired Air Force Col. J.D. Clem join the team focused on U.S. Air Force programs. With 30 years of Air Force experience, Clem served, most recently, as the division chief at SAF/AQ responsible for tactical airlift, special operators and trainers.

"With my Air Force special operations and combat search and rescue experience, I chose to work at AgustaWestland because they have an enormous product range at a great price," said Clem. "The AW139M is the right aircraft for the CVLSP mission and, by far, the most cost effective option for the taxpayers."

AgustaWestland Offers HH-71 for Combat Search and Rescue



AgustaWestland North America responded to the U.S. Air Force's request for information, offering the battle-hardened HH-71 for critical combat search and rescue missions. The HH-71, based on the combat-proven AW101, offers a modern, mature helicopter with all-weather capabilities to complete challenging missions in austere environments such as sand and snow. The aircraft includes three engines providing aircrews the assurance *that the mission can be successfully completed with speed, security and safety.



"We want the Air Force to count on AgustaWestland for the best products and best talent in the industry for their rotorcraft needs," said Rettig.

AgustaWestland North America, a subsidiary of AgustaWestland, a Finmeccanica company, operates as a U.S. company under a special security agreement, responsible for the company's U.S. government programs. AgustaWestland is a global leader in military and commercial vertical-lift. With more than 100 years of experience in the aerospace industry, AgustaWestland provides an unrivaled range of rotorcraft and vertical-lift products and services for every military, government and commercial application.



-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Bomber Discussions Template For USAF ISR

Sep 20, 2011

By Amy Butler



A potential rebalancing of the U.S. Air Force’s intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) spending plans could follow in the footsteps of the service’s earlier work to craft a “family of systems” concept for long-range strike, according to Air Force Secretary Michael Donley.

“As the overall budget comes down, we will have to get a little bit more discriminating about how we set priorities for ISR development,” he tells Aviation Week.

A re-examination of the ISR portfolio, led by the Air Force’s intelligence office, is already under way. Donley says it will be due in the fall in time to advise senior leaders on major budget decisions. The fiscal 2013 budget will go to Congress in February.

Depending on the outcome of the national debt-reduction talks this fall, the Pentagon could be forced to trim 5-10% from its budget. This is driving the Defense Department to run an unusually brutal series of budget drills across all of its major investment programs.

Only three years ago, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates scolded the Air Force for being slow to respond with ISR support for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq; he subsequently established an ISR Task Force to manage quick-reaction programs for deployment to the field to circumvent the traditional acquisition system. “I’ve been wrestling for months to get more intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets into the theater,” he said during a speech at the Air War College then. “Because people were stuck in old ways of doing business, it’s been like pulling teeth.”

As a result, the Air Force significantly boosted its investment in General Atomics Predator and Reaper unmanned aerial systems (UAS). Additionally, the service began the MC-12 Project Liberty program, which called for L-3 Communications to outfit Hawker Beechcraft King Air 350ERs with electro-optical, infrared and signals intelligence sensors bound for Iraq and Afghanistan.

“I see the need to focus on [affordability] in ISR, which has been a growth area and where we have focused on the introduction of leading-edge technologies quickly to support conflicts,” Donley says. “We had a successful engagement with the secretary of defense last year on the bomber because the Air Force took a very holistic approach and took the time to do a detailed evaluation of the choices and make a balanced judgment. We’re using that model for the ISR review.”

The bomber discussion grew out of a plan by Gates to table the program until the Air Force had reviewed its options. The acquisition strategy has not been publicly revealed, but Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz has said the resulting platform will not be a “lone wolf,” meaning it must connect with other platforms in the family of systems to execute its mission. This could dramatically reduce the requirements for the forthcoming bomber, as well as the cost.

“The focus is on cost consciousness, on affordability, on settling down program content,” Donley says. “We tried to be very disciplined in how we approached that [on the] tanker program, and we focused very carefully on this on the bomber program.”

Major questions

There are some major questions looming for the ISR portfolio. The Air Force has yet to make a decision on a long-running debate about whether to pour more money into re-engining the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JStars) and upgrade its ground-surveillance radar or find another solution – possibly the Global Hawk or a Boeing 737-based design – for the mission. Northrop Grumman leads both the JStars and Global Hawk UAS programs.

Also in question is whether and when to begin retiring the U-2 fleet as the high-flying Global Hawk UAS continues to mature. This has been a standing debate in the Air Force.

It is also unclear how interested the service is in extremely long-endurance UAS systems that can fly for days or weeks, far longer than the Reaper and Global Hawks deployed today. Also, the Air Force has explored concepts for a Reaper replacement but has yet to articulate final requirements or a procurement schedule.

Photo: Northrop Grumman

[buglerbilly]

Air Force Resends Grounded Stealth Fighters Into Action … Without Fixing Them

By David Axe September 20, 2011 | 1:00 pm



Four months after grounding its entire force of F-22 Raptors, the Air Force has cleared the roughly 170 high-tech stealth fighters to resume flying.

Just one little problem: The brass still doesn’t know why a dozen Raptor pilots blacked out and one fatally crashed, prompting the May 3 no-fly order. Officials suspected the oxygen system aboard the $300-million, radar-evading superfighter. Ground crews starting up the jets in sealed, garage-like hangars might also have been a factor. After months of study, the Air Force still can’t say for sure.

But the Lockheed-built F-22s comprise around half of America’s dogfighting fleet. They can’t stay grounded forever without eventually jeopardizing national security.

Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said the risk should be manageable. “We now have enough insight from recent studies and investigations that a return to flight is prudent and appropriate,” Schwartz said. He ordered careful monitoring of the jets and their pilots as the F-22 training system slowly cranks back into gear over a period of months.

The return to flight marks the end of a troubling period for America’s small fleet of stealth aircraft. Soon after grounding the F-22s, the Air Force also briefly suspended flying for its 20 stealthy Joint Strike Fighters. The problem in the F-35’s power system has now been resolved. But now, a new design flaw has emerged.

The problems with the F-22 and its stealth stablemates highlight the risk with small, “silver-bullet” fleets of similar aircraft. Larger numbers of more different kinds of jets means greater redundancy and fewer single points of failure. F-22s and F-35s could be the Air Force’s only fighters after 2030 or so. What happens if both types get grounded then?

Photo: Air Force

[buglerbilly]

Huge Air Force Costs Are Unknown

(Source: Center for Defense Information; issued September 21, 2011)

A common characteristic of a system that is handling too much money is that it neither knows nor cares how much money it is spending on its own major assets.

NO! A common characteristic is that NOBODY has specified HOW expenditure and costs should be defined and WHAT they should cover. This is typically WHY you get mis-reporting you dumb, arrogant, cunts ever heard of Apples versus Oranges in a well known phrase or saying?

Obviously I ADORE Thunk Tanks.................

The U.S. Air Force does not keep complete records on the cost to operate and support its aircraft and misreports those costs on the rare occasion it is asked to. These costs are not inconsequential; typically, they are twice the cost to initially buy the aircraft.

Winslow Wheeler reports in a new study for the Straus Military Reform Project.

Click here for the full report (10 pages in PDF format) on the CDI website.

http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/AirForceOSCosts.pdf

-ends-

This little lot is part of The World Security Institute............


The World Security Institute (WSI) is an American think tank committed to independent research and journalism on global affairs. Based in Washington, DC, it emerged from the Center for Defense Information, which now exists in a research capacity as a component of the larger organization.

The Institute's president is Bruce G. Blair, a nuclear weapons analyst and scholar formerly with the Brookings Institution.

The Center for Defense Information's director is Theresa Hitchens, an expert on space security.

I think we should change T5C and make it a Think Tank posing as a Charity as well..............money earner while you spout shit!

[buglerbilly]

DATE:21/09/11

SOURCE:Flight International

EADS growth strategy in US not linked to Air Force One replacement

By Stephen Trimble

The US Air Force may have a difficult time finding more than one aircraft manufacturer to compete for replacing the Boeing VC-25A, also known as 'Air Force One', in a few years.

The USAF's long-range budget plans anticipate releasing a request for proposals for a presidential aircraft replacement (PAR) contract in the third quarter of fiscal year 2015, according to budget documents released last February.

EADS North America once considered offering the Airbus A380 to replace the 747-200-based VC-25A, but it is no longer clear if the company is willing to participate in a competition.


© Airbus
Could Airbus offer its A380 as a replacement for the 747-200-based VC-25A

The VC-25A replacement programme does not fit within EADS's long-term growth strategy for the North American market, which is focused on establishing a permanent manufacturing and service base on US soil, EADS North America said in response to questions.

If the A380 is withheld by EADS, the USAF's only available options will be Boeing products, including VIP versions of the Boeing 747-8I, 777 or 787. Four years ago, the USAF requested data on all three aircraft for an analysis of alternatives. Information about the A380 and A350 was also sought as part of the study.

Earlier this year, Boeing defeated an Airbus bid to replace the air force's KC-135 tanker fleet with its 767-based KC-46A, which was selected ahead of a development of the A330-200.

The PAR requirement has been quiet for several years, but was highlighted in Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley's speech at the Air Force Association convention in Washington DC on 19 September.

"We have recognised for several years now that the Air Force One replacement is out there in our future," Donley said. "We're being asked to look at the status of our forces beyond the five-year future defence plan (FYDP), and we have to be mindful of what's just outside the FYDP."

[buglerbilly]

DATE:21/09/11

SOURCE:Flight International

Hypoxia symptoms still pose mystery as F-22A returns to flight

By Stephen Trimble

Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptors have been cleared to fly for the first time in four months, but the oxygen problem that grounded them remains a mystery to the US Air Force.

It will be two months before F-22A pilots regain full operational capability of the fighters after the four-month hiatus, Gen Norton Schwartz, USAF chief of staff, said on 20 September.

The USAF's wide-ranging safety investigation, which was prompted by the incidents that caused the grounding, could take even longer.

Sixteen flight tests were filed to identify the source of possible contamination of the F-22A's oxygen supply, which had caused 12 pilots to report hypoxia-like symptoms since April 2008.


© USAF

However, the USAF has since determined that a fatal F-22 crash in November 2010, in Alaska, was not caused by a fault in the aircraft's oxygen system, Schwartz said. The actual cause of the crash has not been released.

"We do not have a smoking gun here," Schwartz said.

Pilots will wear "certain protective equipment" on F-22 missions, and receive new training on emergency procedures, he added.

The USAF also will continue to collect data on oxygen quality during daily flight operations.

A broader safety review of the onboard oxygen generation systems (OBOGS) on USAF combat aircraft also is ongoing.

The technology replaced liquid oxygen canisters in modern military aircraft in the 1970s.

The USAF became concerned about OBOGS on the F-22A after last year's fatal crash. On 3 May, US Air Combat Command put the Raptor fleet on a voluntary safety stand-down, as the investigation progressed.

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

T-X Mating Dance Continues ... With Industry and Congress

Posted by Amy Butler at 9/21/2011 10:07 AM CDT

As planning for the next big U.S. Air Force aircraft competition — for 350 T-38C replacements — heats up, industry is posturing.

This means a flurry of reviews for potential final assembly plants, U.S. suppliers to beef up stateside content for foreign-produced designs and, of course, the mating ritual with would-be advocates on Capitol Hill. The American South is a likely beneficiary of this posturing at a time when jobs are major political currency in Washington.

BAE announced its prime contractor bid with Northrop Grumman Technical Services, which will be the manufacturing lead for building the Hawk-based proposal. This partnership likely points to a final assembly at the company's Lake Charles, La., plant. This facility was the site of modifications to Boeing 707s into the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System, the Air Force’s premier air-to-ground surveillance platform. It now houses depot activities, but would benefit from an influx of substantial manufacturing orders.

Meanwhile, Italian aerospace giant Alenia is still in the market for a U.S. partner. The company was at one time exploring a deal with Northrop. Alenia North America CEO John Young says he is still looking for a partner, but is in no rush. He says he is keeping his eye on Cecil Field in North Florida as a potential manufacturing site. This was the location chosen by the company for final assembly of a U.S. C-27J tactical airlifter, though that plan fell through when the Pentagon sliced its buy. However, Alenia also has ties to South Carolina, where its 787 partner Boeing has extensive manufacturing operations to build the commercial airliner.

Likewise, Lockheed Martin, teamed with Korea Aerospace Industries, will be looking for a place to plant its stateside final assembly operations. Marietta, Ga., is the obvious option, with F-22 manufacturing winding down in the near term. This plant has enjoyed powerful backing from such defense heavy-hitters on Capitol Hill as Sen. Saxby Chambliss from Georgia.

One other option for the companies could be Mobile, Ala., where EADS was poised to develop for final assembly of its A330-based tanker until the company lost to Boeing’s KC46A.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the Gulf Coast states have banded together to make a pitch for developing the area — with its inexpensive job force — into an aerospace hub. So, it is likely that lawmakers from this region will make a play for the area as a whole as well as for their individual interests.

There is no RFP out yet, and there is no official competition yet. But once the industrial teams get more defined, expect a hard-core jobs play by all involved. This debate shaped much of the Boeing/EADS strategizing on the Hill during the long-fought KC-X duel. And it is not likely to vanish in this economy with three foreign designs coming ashore for U.S. work.

[buglerbilly]

U.S. Air Force Extends BCAN Com-Relay Biz Jets Operations in Kandahar


This Bombardier/Northrop Grumman E-11 carrying the BCAN airborne communications relay bridge is operated from Kandahar airfield in Afghanistan by the U.S. Air Force 451st Air Expeditionary Wing. The current contract will also pay for the aircraft painting, as the leased executive jets are now formally owned by the Air Force. Photo: Senior Airman Corey Hook

The U.S. Air Force has extended the deployment of two E11 Bombardier BD-700 Global Express executive jets operated by Northrop Grumman for operations in Afghanistan, serving as airborne communications nodes. The company was awarded an initial $18 million service contract in June, to deploy and operate the two aircraft to Kandahar, Afghanistan. This contract has now extended over five-month at an additional cost of $43 million. The Air Force plans to deploy three E-11 aircraft in Afghanistan, to be augmented by BCAn installation on two Global hawk Block 20 unmanned aircraft deployed over the Afghan theater of operation. The company has deployed the prototype BCAN in Afghanistan since 2008.

The payload carried by the aircraft is the BCAN, or Battlefield Airborne Communications Node – a system that bridges between different radio frequencies and “translates” among incompatible communications systems to enable information sharing and enhanced situational awareness. Northrop Grumman developed BACN under a $276 million Defense Microelectronics Activity contract as part of the Interim Gateway program, meeting urgent requirements operational need.

The system employs gateway manager algorithms and Internet protocols to support ground elements a consistent and reliable communications in all types of terrain, using different radio waveforms.


Carrie Premus (left), 451st Tactical Airborne Gateway hardware engineering contractor, and Reggie Green, 451st Tactical Airborne Gateway payload quality assurance contractor, operate communication equipment on a E-11 aircraft at Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan, Aug. 22, 2011. The TAG Squadron conducts flying missions in support of 451st Air Expeditionary Wing operations. Photo: Senior Airman Corey Hook,

[buglerbilly]

DATE:22/09/11

SOURCE:Flight International

Trainers and helicopters stuck in USAF budget limbo

By Stephen Trimble

Three aviation programmes - the Boeing KC-46A tanker, Lockheed Martin F-35A fighter and a next-generation bomber - have received firm and explicit backing from US Air Force leaders against sweeping new budget cuts.

"There is no question we face difficult choices, but with these priorities firmly in mind, we can still advance air force capabilities," said Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley. He added military satellites to the list in a keynote speech at the Air Force Association's Air & Space conference in Washington, DC on 19 September.

But Donley's list of top priorities left at least four major programmes - involving new helicopters and trainers - in limbo, awaiting the USAF's next moves in either the acquisition or budget processes.

Neither Donley nor Gen Norton Schwartz, USAF chief of staff, rose to defend or even mention the service's commitment to these four programmes, for T-X advanced jet trainers, light attack trainers, utility helicopters under the common vertical lift support programme (CVLSP) and combat search and rescue (CSAR) helicopters.

But if competitors for these programmes were discouraged by the lack of support from the USAF's top leaders, it was not obvious in the exhibit hall.

The T-X programme to replace about 450 Northrop T-38C Talons received the most attention. BAE Systems announced teaming up with Northrop Grumman Technical Services, which has agreed to manufacture the Hawk 128/T2. The agreement leaves Alenia Aeronautica still without a US-based manufacturing partner for the T-100, the USAF version of the M-346.

"We have a lot of options," said John Young, chief executive of Alenia North America.

Boeing, meanwhile, unveiled a concept image for a V-tailed, all-new trainer to replace the T-38 after around 2020. Lockheed displayed a model of the T-50 Golden Eagle, which is manufactured by Korea Aerospace Industries.

The exhibition saw rotorcraft offerings from AgustaWestland, Bell Boeing, Bell Helicopter, Boeing, EADS North America and Sikorsky. But the status of the CVLSP draft request for proposals remains overdue, and the budget to launch the CSAR programme next year has yet to be clarified.

The contract award for the light air support contract, meanwhile, has been delayed again from September until November, having originally been scheduled in June.

The air force has received bids from the Embraer/Sierra Nevada A-29 Super Tucano and the Hawker Beechcraft/Lockheed AT-6. But a planned follow-on contract to buy light attack and armed reconnaissance trainers for the USAF is now in jeopardy. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate are considering proposals to eliminate funding for the programme.

[buglerbilly]

USAF Weighs Which ISR Programs To Cut

Sep 26, 2011

By Amy Butler
Washington



The U.S. Air Force’s fleet of intelligence-collection aircraft—from the high-flying U-2 to a bevy of newer unmanned vehicles and mainstay Boeing 707-based platforms—has undergone substantial change owing to a funding windfall and urgent requirements since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Ten years later, though, the service is at the precipice of a series of decisions that will influence the shape of a smaller intelligence force structure that must endure and meet the demands of a variety of threats for decades to come.

Air Force Secretary Michael Donley says the service is weighing its choices for the future intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) fleet mix. A sweeping study of options should be complete within weeks, and its findings will inform decisions on what intel programs to cut in the fiscal 2013 budget going to Congress in February. Changes in this portfolio could total in the billions over the next five years as the Air Force weighs a variety of tiered choices from the least invasive to more draconian reductions that will be enacted if Congress fails to pass a debt-reduction plan.

The tradeoff studies are not unique to the intelligence fleet; they are under way for all Air Force disciplines. For example, despite proclaiming that no alternative to the stealthy, single-engine and expensive F-35 exists, Donley acknowledges that even this massive program, which he identifies as critical, is not safe from scrutiny. “We will noodle on F-35 details at the margins to find that right balance” between stabilizing production at Lockheed Martin and continuing to execute the development contract.

But the intelligence portfolio is one that has so many varied capabilities—including platforms, sensors and ground-based processing architectures—that it is perhaps the area most demanding of oversight and realignment. “At one point last year, I counted 13 different modernization or enhancement programs in the ISR capability,” Donley said at the Air Force Association conference here. “In a declining budget environment, we are going to have be more careful and more discriminating in the choices that we make.”

Necking down the ISR portfolio could be a tough sell for the Air Force, which was publicly chided by then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates only a few short years ago for lackluster ISR support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Only days before leaving office, Gates penned a memo praising the service for progress but demanding yet another increase in MQ-9 Reaper purchases—to more than 80 from 65 combat air patrols’ worth of the General Atomics unmanned aircraft system (UAS). However, with Gates gone, some service officials say they feel a new freedom to at least begin studying the issue; a proposal for ISR reductions under his guidance would have been dismissed outright, they say.

An example of Gates’s diminished influence is that Donley did not back the proposal to increase the Reaper buy. “That matter has continued to be under debate; it will continue to be under debate this fall, especially in the context of the budget. . . . We do not want to step back from progress we have made,” Donley says, though he stopped short of proclaiming a new plan for Reaper purchases.

Some Air Force and industry officials note that simply buying more platforms lacks balance. “As we go forward, we need to fill in behind on the sensor issues, the infrastructure development, the command-and-control and the communications pieces, [and] we know that we have challenges in keeping up with the processing, exploitation and dissemination,” says Donley. Likewise, the Air Force has taken on the small MC-12W Project Liberty fleet and the responsibilities for maintaining and manning it. While platform makers may see a downturn in new business, the sensor providers could see an uptick in interest in modular sensors and incremental upgrades for those aircraft already purchased.

The Air Force is not simply weighing one platform versus another in its budget decisions, but also the cost of buying certain platforms against the price of maintaining them and providing trained manpower and proper information dissemination tools.

However, the fight over which platforms gain funding and which ones lose is likely to be hotly debated. Contractors are already posturing to make the case for continued money—although in some cases two programs backed by the same company could be pitted against each other to vie for funds.

Such is the situation with the future ground-surveillance fleet. Officials will likely be forced to make a decision, at least in the short term, on whether to pump more funding into the Joint Stars fleet or the Global Hawk Block 40 UAS—both produced by Northrop Grumman. The company has long backed both efforts, but a sweeping ground-surveillance analysis of alternatives is wrapping up and could force a tough decision on the part of the Air Force. Northrop may find it hard to continue backing both projects in a fiscal environment where defense programs are likely to get axed. Global Hawk, however, has had its share of cost overruns; if other programs are cut in its favor, Northrop will have to continue to execute production and development without repeating blunders.

Likewise, the Air Force may find it hard to continue arguing for millions of dollars to replace the engines—and potentially the massive surveillance radar—on the Joint Stars fleet. Several industry executives acknowledge that Joint Stars modernization could be among the low-hanging fruit ripe for a cut in the ISR portfolio.

Although cost is not likely to be the only item put under the microscope, a Pentagon review of alternatives to Global Hawk that was sent to Congress in June has some raw numbers that could be considered in upcoming decisions. Pentagon officials estimate that the Joint Stars fleet costs $650 million per year more to operate than the Global Hawk for equal coverage. Global Hawk, however, lacks a command-and-control capability that is fielded on the Joint Stars.

Also likely to be addressed is a retirement plan for the high-flying Lockheed Martin U-2, especially in light of continued fielding of the Global Hawk, which can now collect imagery and signals intelligence (sigint). The two programs have fought over funding from the Air Force for more than a decade, but financial pressures on the Pentagon could finally force the service to stick to a retirement plan for the U-2, even though combatant commanders continue to request the venerable aircraft for key missions in the Middle East and near North Korea.

“When analyzed in the context of the Global Hawk mission, the U-2 costs $220 million per year more than the Global Hawk,” the Pentagon cost analysis says.

While Joint Stars may be a hard sell, many industry executives note that the Rivet Joint sigint-collection fleet could escape unscathed because it has been updated through a rotating depot-maintenance program; both its mission systems and structure are maintained by L-3 Communications.

Service officials must also assess the need for a wide-area surveillance capability, such as the Gorgon Stare system, which is capable of collecting wide swaths of full-motion video, against the price of developing and fielding it. Likewise the Pentagon as a whole must determine what to do with a bevy of Task Force Odin aircraft—small, special-mission intelligence collectors operated by various services—as war activities draw down. Options range from stripping their sensors off and selling the airframes, maintaining them in a warm status for potential deployment in the future or, possibly, continuing to deploy them. These small fleets, while highly effective in the war, are difficult to manage owing to specialized training and maintenance needs.

Budget drills conducted at this time of the year typically explore a variety of scenarios. This year, however, Air Force and industry officials suggest these drills are weighing even more dramatic cuts than usual—such as outright retirement of mainstay fleets such as the U-2 and Rivet Joint. Even if they are simply drills, their tone signals the mounting pressure on the Pentagon to slash its costs.

Photo: USAF

[buglerbilly]

USAF Delays RfP for Security Helos

By MARCUS WEISGERBER

Published: 26 Sep 2011 11:04

The U.S. Air Force has told industry it is delaying the release of a draft request for proposals (RfP) for new nuclear missile field security helicopters.

This comes one month after the service submitted a draft 2013 budget proposal to the Office of the Secretary of Defense that did not include funding for the Common Vertical Lift Support Platform (CVLSP) program.

"The Air Force is currently undergoing programmatic and budgetary deliberations resulting from the Budget Control Act and establishment of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction," a notice posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website states. "In recognition of industry's time and monetary investment required to provide input on the draft RfP, the Air Force is temporarily delaying its release."

The service was expected to release a draft RfP at the beginning of September.

In August, Congress passed and the president signed the Budget Control Act, which calls for $450 billion in national security cuts over the next decade. The law also established a bipartisan super committee that is tasked with finding an additional $1.2 trillion in federal spending cuts over the same time period.

The CVLSP program is supposed to replace 93 UH-1N Huey helicopters that currently perform the nuclear security and VIP transport missions.

[buglerbilly]

HC-130J arrival brings promise of improved personnel recovery

Posted 9/26/2011 Email story Print story

by Airman 1st Class Nicholas Benroth
23rd Wing Public Affairs


355th Wing and 23rd Wing leader salute an HC-130J Combat King II piloted by Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz Sept. 24, 2011, at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz. Schwartz flew in the aircraft for an HC-130J arrival ceremony. The aircraft's mission is to rapidly deploy to execute combatant commander directed recovery operations to austere airfields. (U.S. Air Force photo/ Staff Sgt. Joshua J. Garcia)

9/26/2011 - DAVIS-MONTHAN AIR FORCE BASE, Ariz. (AFNS) -- Air Combat Command officials received its first HC-130J Combat King II after Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz flew the aircraft here and officiated an arrival ceremony Sept. 24.

The delivery of the new C-130 model from Georgia was significant for the personnel recovery mission, as the predecessor HC-130P/N King begins to be replaced with the newer HC-130Js.

"It is an honor to have flown such a magnificent aircraft," Schwartz said during the ceremony. "This is such a significant milestone for the personnel recovery community. The capabilities of the new HC-130J are a magnitude greater than any of its predecessors."

The previous C-130 models were originally built in the 1960s, but age and flight time have caught up with the airframes, said Lt. Col. Jason Hanover, the 563rd Rescue Group commander.

"This new aircraft is replacing an aging fleet and will give us so much more capability," Hanover said. "It's still called a C-130, but this is such a radically different aircraft. We will always execute our rescue mission, but this will allow us to facilitate other needs across the force."

The Combat King II has a long list of modifications that will increase its mission effectiveness, including improved navigation, threat detection and countermeasure systems, Hanover said.

Before the newly arrived HC-130J can begin flying missions, it will be flown by the testing squadron here. Air Force officials expect HC-130Js to begin regular duty at the base in early 2013.

In the meantime, members of the 79th Rescue Squadron here will complete the training needed to fly and operate the new model.

"Right now, the 79th RQS is on their last major deployment with the older model of the C-130 and will be set to begin sending their people to the new J-model courses," Hanover said. "The eight months of training needed to operate this aircraft really show all the improvements that have been made."

The new aircraft will be a welcome addition to the Air Force's rescue community, which is second to none in training, dedication and results, Schwartz said.

"It's a result of all this that Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coastguardsmen who serve in harm's way have that extra measure of confidence," Schwartz said. "They know that in times of danger or extreme duress, they can count on the fact that you will be there, or you will die trying."

[buglerbilly]

Boeing F-15E Radar Modernization Program to Enter Production

ST. LOUIS, Sept. 27, 2011 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] today announced that the U.S. Air Force has granted the F-15E Radar Modernization Program (RMP) approval to begin low-rate initial production (LRIP) of the APG-82(V)1 radar system.

Boeing and radar supplier Raytheon also performed extensive flight tests to validate the design and development of the system. The RMP leverages prior radar development programs on F-15C and F/A-18E/F aircraft to significantly reduce cost and integration risk for this new radar.

"This is a great day for the F-15E and for the U.S. Air Force," said Maj. Brian Hartt, U.S. Air Force RMP program manager. "The F-15E RMP couples new technology with improved system reliability to position the F-15E for many more years of service to the warfighter."

The RMP development effort is undergoing an aggressive 14-month, 110-sortie flight test program at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., and Holloman Air Force Base, N.M. Boeing and Raytheon will perform data reduction analysis throughout the test phase to verify that the system performance meets the rigorous specifications that make the APG-82(V)1 radar state-of-the-art.

"The RMP is the latest modification under way for the F-15E fleet that the Air Force has identified in its Modernization Sustainment Plan," said Karen Butler, RMP program manager for Boeing. "It will ensure the F-15E has the capability and performance the U.S. Air Force requires to achieve total air-to-air and air-to-ground dominance in the future. Achieving LRIP on schedule and on cost is a major milestone for the program and puts us a step closer to putting the system into the hands of the warfighter."

Production of the first LRIP lot of six units is scheduled to begin in October, followed by production of 10 units in LRIP 2 and 17 units in LRIP 3.

The RMP APG-82(V)1 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar will replace the F-15E strike fighter's current APG-70 Mechanically Scanned Array radar. The AESA provides improved radar reliability, maintainability and performance, as well as reduced support costs. When integrated into the F-15E weapons system, the AESA radar will significantly improve detection and tracking of enemy targets.

Other RMP elements include a wideband radome, modified environment control system, and modified radio frequency tunable filters, which allow the radar and electronic warfare system to operate simultaneously.

A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is one of the world's largest defense, space and security businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions, and the world's largest and most versatile manufacturer of military aircraft. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is a $32 billion business with 64,000 employees worldwide. Follow us on Twitter: @BoeingDefense.

[buglerbilly]

Boeing: Retire E-8s ASAP and buy P-8s

By John Reed Tuesday, September 27th, 2011 12:01 pm



Boeing has begun pitching the idea of the Air Force gradually retiring its fleet of 707-based E-8 Joint STARS ground scanning radar planes beginning in 2013 and using money saved from that move to replace them with a plane based on the Navy’s P-8 subhunters.

“Obviously there are opportunities for the Air Force to stand down some number of E-8s, maintain GMTI capability and use that money to then offset a recapitalization program,” said Jim Eisenhart, Boeing’s senior business development manager for Air Force programs, during a Sept. 20 breakfast with reporters at the Air Force Association’s annual conference in National Harbor, Md. “So what this drives you to is, instead of having reeingined 50 year old jets in 2020, you have a brand new fleet of more capable, more reliable aircraft operating in 2020.”

Eisenhart claims that retiring E-8s and moving to the P-8 with its improved systems and more efficient engineswould generate half a billion dollars in savings per-year by 2019.

“You would stand down somewhere between five and seven E-8s and then begin using that [operations and sustainment] cost savings to [buy] the new jets and since the P-8 is already in production today and you’re buying a non-developmental item, it would be an extension of the Navy contract,” said Eisenhart.

“If you think about what all we’re gonna try to buy in 2020, a half a billion dollars goes a long way towards helping solve where you’re going to come up with that kind of procurement money,” he added.

Now, we’ve known for more than a year that Boeing has been hoping to someday pitch the P-8 equipped with a ground scanning radar to the Air Force as a replacement for the service’s aging JSTARS. However, according to Eisenhart, the service’s acting acquisition chief, David Van Buren approached the company during the Paris Air Show in June, 2009 to “informally” ask what ideas Boeing had in regards to replacing the E-8.

It was revealed a few months later that the Air Force would conduct an analysis of alternatives (AoA) for the JSTARS Ground Moving Target Indicator mission. That AoA kicked off last January and has the service looking at replacing the JSTARS with everything from another big jet such as the P-8 to small business jets like the RAF’s fleet of Sentinel R1s or even UAVs and blimps. The service is expected to publish the results of the AoA this fall.

The Boeing executive quoted the Air Force’s fleet viability board study that it costs roughly, $60 million a year to operate an E-8. He went a step further to claim that the E-8 fleet costs $10.7 billion including “fully burdened cost of fuel” to fly, as is.

The service could begin retiring six to seven planes a year beginning in 2013 and Boeing could begin building P-8s for the Air Force in 2015 and have all 17 JSTARS replaced with P-8s by 2019. These planes would be tacked onto the Navy’s P-8 buy of 117 aircraft.

“By combining the order quantities you now create an economy of scale which is going to reduce production cost because you get supplier stability, you get orders of magnitude greater quantities and so in the long-run it will serve DoD’s and the taxpayers best interest because it will lower the per-unit cost,” argued Eisenhart.

Meanwhile, support for the effort to replacing the 40-year old E-8’s JT3D engines (designed in the 1950s for the 707 and B-52) with the newer Pratt & Whitney JT8D (designed in the early 1960s for the 727 and DC-9) has been up and down over the past few years due to questions about the cost of the effort. But last year, the Air Force gave Northrop Grumman a $223 million contract to install four new JT8Ds on a JSTARS airframe and another $60 million for “flight testing, data capture for flight simulators, modified air certification, pneumatic system development, training, logistics, flight manuals and logistics design efforts,” according to the service. However, Pratt will soon stop making the JT8D meaning that the air force will face a diminishing base of spare parts for the engines in the coming decades — something that can lead to new costs and challenges.

Northrop executives argued last February that they could reengine the JSTARS and equip it with new avionics for under $3 billion:

From Inside the Air Force:


Installing new engines, avionics and self-defense equipment would cost the service less than $3 billion, according to Dave Nagy, a Northrop business development official who oversees the E-8C program. The new engines and modifications to existing power generators would give the aircraft more thrust so it can climb faster and cruise more efficiently and the avionics upgrades make the aircraft compliant with international overflight regulations. The self defense systems make the aircraft more survivable.…

Despite their age, Nagy maintains the aircraft are structurally sound and have about “50-plus years of useful longevity left. This fleet is a new fleet by way of the production of these platforms and by [no] means is it a fleet that is about ready to move into the sunset,” he said.

The E-8C aircraft go through depot maintenance every 18 months. Currently, engine repairs consume a majority of maintenance down time. While the structure of the aircraft has an “infinite life” and had not displayed aging issues seen on other similar planes, the current engines have an economic life, according to Nagy.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/09/27/boeing-retire-e-8s-asap-and-buy-p-8s/#ixzz1ZCzqgCki
DoDBuzz.com

[Unicorn]

Basically Boeing is saying instead of an engine replacement program, for which there are significant precedents within the USAF and which would be a cost effective option, the Air Force should subsidise their replacement with smaller aircraft with significantly shorter life span.

Basically pay Boeing for all the development costs for a less capable replacement. Why doesn't the USAF try and get some investment back by adapting the same aircraft being used for the tankers, the 767-200, for the JSTARS fleet, when they are no longer sustainable?

Boeing really has no shame whatsoever.

[JimWH]

Boeing really has no shame whatsoever.

Has anyone ever accused them of having any?

[buglerbilly]

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

USAF helicopter competition postponed again, faces new budget review

Stephen Trimble Washington DC

3 hours ago

Source: Flight

A competition to supply 93 helicopters to the US Air Force may be the first publicly known victim of sweeping budget reviews within the Department of Defense.

At least four companies vying for the common vertical lift support programme (CVLSP) have been expecting the release of a draft request for proposals for several months.

However, a new acquisition notice released by the USAF informs the bidders that the draft RFP is being withheld because of "programmatic and budgetary deliberations".

The notice comes less than a week after Michael Donley, secretary of the air force, publicly warned that "lower-priority programmes" would be dropped because of the DoD's new budget environment.

"It's safe to say that every single line of the budget is under scrutiny," Donley said on 19 September, addressing the annual convention of the Air Force Association.

The CVLSP intends to replace 62 Bell Helicopter UH-1N Iroquois aircraft originally delivered 41 years ago.

The aircraft perform two missions. A portion of the fleet is used to ferry security forces around the far-flung fields of missile silos in the western half of the USA. The other half is based around Washington DC, and is primarily tasked with the mission of rapidly evacuating the government's top leadership, if necessary.

The replacement programme has already been delayed by almost a year because of a dispute over acquisition strategy. The USAF's Global Strike Command favoured awarding a sole-source contract for the Sikorsky UH-60M Black Hawk. But David Van Buren, the USAF's acquisition chief, decided to award a contract only after a competitive bidding process.

Sikorsky has four major competitors for the CVLSP contract. AgustaWestland has aggressively marketed the AW139M, with a representative aircraft already modified to perform the mission. Bell is offering the UH-1Y Venom. EADS North America is considering offering the Eurocopter EC725 Super Cougar or the NH Industries NH90.

The budget reviews are likely to delay - or even terminate - the start of a competition, but contract award had been scheduled for September 2012. The first operational squadron was scheduled to enter service three years later.

[buglerbilly]

Contractor Teams Shaping Up For T-X Work

Sep 28, 2011

By Amy Butler
Washington



The U.S. Air Force has not announced when it will replace its T-38C fast jet trainer, but industry is already posturing for a competition that will likely result in insourcing manufacturing jobs, amid high U.S. unemployment.

With the three would-be competitors all proposing designs currently assembled on foreign soil, industry officials suggest that it is only a matter of time before these companies begin to make their case to U.S. lawmakers by touting their designs’ contribution to employment in influential congressional districts. Jobs numbers or locations are not taken into account if the Air Force follows typical source-selection rules, but, as with the politically contentious KC-135 replacement duel between Boeing and EADS, the T-X teams are likely to jockey for position as the “most American” team, insourcing the most U.S.-based jobs.

BAE was the first of the likely competitors to hint at its plans when it announced last week that Northrop Grumman will be its U.S. manufacturing lead. Although the teammates are mum about where their Hawk-based aircraft would be built, Northrop has been hoping to secure work for its Lake Charles, La., plant. This facility was the site of modifications to ready Boeing 707s for the Joint Stars air-to-ground surveillance platform. It now houses depot activities that could wane in light of budget talks (see p. 30).

It is “not surprising” that Northrop and BAE are teamed,” says John Young, president of Alenia Aeronautica, which is eyeing an M-346-based proposal. “Northrop Grumman needed to fill Lake Charles.” An industry official says Young was in talks with Northrop as well.

Tom Vice, president of Northrop Grumman Technical Services, says it will lead Northrop’s effort with experts from across the company.

Young, however, says he is “in no hurry to find a partner,” and that talks are ongoing with potential teammates. Alenia aims to find a U.S. prime contractor, though plans are not firm, CEO Giuseppe Giordo said during the Paris air show in June. “After seven years of operation in the U.S., we know the rules, we know the way to work, and we know how to promote the program.”

Partner candidates include Boeing, Raytheon and L-3 Communications. Boeing officials continue to hold out hope that the Air Force will scrap its stated plan of supporting a quick and inexpensive development effort and opt instead for a clean-sheet approach. This is unlikely, however, and the company is said to have the door open to a possible partnership with Alenia. The pair’s last venture, to jointly push the C-27J in the U.S. market, ended due to unresolved issues over workshare.

Young says he believes Cecil Field in North Florida could be a potential manufacturing site. This location was chosen by the company for final assembly of the C-27J tactical airlifter, though that plan fell through when the Pentagon sliced its buy. However, Alenia also has ties to South Carolina, where Boeing, its 787 partner, has extensive manufacturing operations to build the commercial airliner.

Though the Lockheed Martin/Korea Aerospace Industries team will stay intact for the T-50-based proposal, the team is likely to take on more U.S. supplier content and must also find an assembly location. The obvious choice for Lockheed would be to replicate the South Korea-based production line in Marietta, Ga. Though 33 C-130J tactical airlifters are built there per year, F-22 production will be winding down, leaving open capacity. This plant has enjoyed powerful backing from such defense heavy-hitters on Capitol Hill as Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.).

Mobile, Ala., is another option. EADS had been poised to develop its final assembly of A330-based tankers there until the company lost to Boeing’s KC-46A.

However, it remains unclear when a competition could begin. The so-called T-X is under the fiscal microscope. Statements from Gen. Edward Rice, who oversees the Air Education and Training Command, hint at a delay. “We are not bounded by the aircraft running out of structural life,” Rice said. In 2009, the Air Force conducted an exhaustive review of the airframe and its systems to get a better idea of life-expectancy. “We are confident we can fly safely,” Rice said.

The T-38C, which is a lead-in trainer for fighter pilots, continues to operate without restrictions despite an average age of well more than 40 years.

The Air Force has a careful balancing act ahead, as officials weigh how late they can start a competition for the T-X and field a new aircraft against the pitfalls of continuing to maintain a fleet that is costing and more and more to operate. Additionally, a T-38 crash in 2008 raised concerns about operating the fleet well after its design life.

The Pentagon is conducting a Defense Acquisition Board meeting on the procurement strategy for the T-X Oct. 21, according to industry officials. This review will likely produce a schedule for the competition and contract award.

Photo: USAF

[ADMk2]

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

USAF helicopter competition postponed again, faces new budget review

Stephen Trimble Washington DC

3 hours ago

Source: Flight

A competition to supply 93 helicopters to the US Air Force may be the first publicly known victim of sweeping budget reviews within the Department of Defense.

At least four companies vying for the common vertical lift support programme (CVLSP) have been expecting the release of a draft request for proposals for several months.

However, a new acquisition notice released by the USAF informs the bidders that the draft RFP is being withheld because of "programmatic and budgetary deliberations".

The notice comes less than a week after Michael Donley, secretary of the air force, publicly warned that "lower-priority programmes" would be dropped because of the DoD's new budget environment.

"It's safe to say that every single line of the budget is under scrutiny," Donley said on 19 September, addressing the annual convention of the Air Force Association.

The CVLSP intends to replace 62 Bell Helicopter UH-1N Iroquois aircraft originally delivered 41 years ago.

The aircraft perform two missions. A portion of the fleet is used to ferry security forces around the far-flung fields of missile silos in the western half of the USA. The other half is based around Washington DC, and is primarily tasked with the mission of rapidly evacuating the government's top leadership, if necessary.

The replacement programme has already been delayed by almost a year because of a dispute over acquisition strategy. The USAF's Global Strike Command favoured awarding a sole-source contract for the Sikorsky UH-60M Black Hawk. But David Van Buren, the USAF's acquisition chief, decided to award a contract only after a competitive bidding process.

Sikorsky has four major competitors for the CVLSP contract. AgustaWestland has aggressively marketed the AW139M, with a representative aircraft already modified to perform the mission. Bell is offering the UH-1Y Venom. EADS North America is considering offering the Eurocopter EC725 Super Cougar or the NH Industries NH90.

The budget reviews are likely to delay - or even terminate - the start of a competition, but contract award had been scheduled for September 2012. The first operational squadron was scheduled to enter service three years later.

FFS, you are running out of money you idiots. Just buy the Blackhawks or UH-1Y's off an already running production line, don't modify them in ANY way and be done with it!

[buglerbilly]

Sheesh! How many times do you need to be told pragmatism is rarely allowed in Defence Procurement............!!!