The Woracle

In two recent stories, Defense News naval expert Chris Cavas has painted a compelling picture of two US services locked in mortal combat over the future of two fighters - the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighter. In his first story, in May, Cavas exposed US Navy efforts to keep US Marine Corps' STOVL F-35s off its carrier decks. Now he has revealed the Marine Corps to be behind attempts to smear the reputation of the Navy's Super Hornet. It is a finely balanced battle, as the Navy holds the Marines' purse strings, but the Marines hold powerful sway in Congress.

The battle has been joined because delays to the JSF have opened up a shortfall in the integrated Navy and Marine Corps fighter force. The Navy plans to plug the gap by buying additional F/A-18E/Fs, now on offer from Boeing for a mere $49.9 million apiece. But the Marine Corps turned its back on the Super Hornet some time ago and staunchly adheres to its plan for an all-STOVL force of F-35s and V-22s.

If the Navy succeeds in keeping the F-35B off its carrier decks, the STOVL JSF could become unaffordable - and not just for the Marine Corps.

Stop - JSF crossing! (USN photo)

Somewhere in the Big Book of Things To Do When Your Program is in Trouble, near the front, it says: "Take it to Washington". And that is what the Missile Defense Agency is doing, bringing the Boeing YAL-1 Airborne Laser prototype to Andrews AFB, just a few miles from Capitol Hill. The converted Boeing 747-400F will be flown across the country for a one-day viewing, landing at Andrews on Wednesday night, 20 June, and returning on Thursday evening to Edwards AFB in California where testing continues.

It is an opportunity to see a unique, and controversial, aircraft at first hand.

So the US has retired its last operational F-16A, the first version of the Electric Jet, just shy of 30 years after it entered service and just as Lockheed Martin is about to sign a contract for the first two production F-35As - the aircraft that is to replace the F-16 in US Air Force service. Thirty years seems a long time between clean-sheet fighters, but 30 years from now will probably seem short.

There are lots of F-16Cs and Ds still flying in US colours, and everything from As through Fs flying internationally, but it was the A that introduced that space-age profile, which has changed so little over the years - a sure sign of a sound design. And it has to be, as the USAF needs to keep the until 2025 - maybe longer if F-35 production gets slowed any more.

No bowing out yet

Based on a Seattle Times report, Airbus-vs-Boeing pundit Scott Hamilton speculates on his website www.leeham.net that changes made by Boeing to its KC-767 for the US Air Force’s KC-X tanker competition may actually improve the chances of the rival Airbus A330-based KC-30.

Hamilton’s argument revolves around the newspaper’s report from Paris that the “KC-767 Advanced” tanker offered by Boeing will use the larger wing from the 767-400. He believes the longer span of the -400 wing erodes Boeing’s argument that the KC-30 is too big to replace the KC-135.

More than three years in the making, India's long-awaited request for proposals for 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft is on the streets - almost. The RFP was approved by the government's defence acquisition council today (22 June) and is expected to be issued within weeks, kicking off the biggest competition yet between US, European and Russian fighter manufacturers.

Contenders are the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Martin F-16, RSK MiG-35 and Saab Gripen. Who will win is anybody's guess, but I think

In case anyone missed this while celebrating July 4, Kawaski has formally rolled out its prototype C-X transport and P-X maritime patrol aircraft for the Japan Defence Agency. You can watch a Japanese television news report at this link:

http://www.fnn-news.com/headlines/CONN00113685.html

The US Air Force clearly has not got the message that Very Light Jets are Very Bad Things, and threaten to Blacken The Skies, because it has dusted off its January 2006 request for information on potential capabilities and military uses of VLJs weighing no more than 10,000lb and costing less than $5 million.

Plans to evaluate available aircraft were shelved because, at the time, none of the VLJs had been FAA-certificated. Now Cessna's Mustang and the Eclipse 500 are approved and others are on the horizon, so the USAF is re-opening discussions with industry - but still with no intent to award a contract, just gather information and maybe fly one or two of them.

It's a trainer...it's a bizjet...no, it's a VLJ (ATG Javelin)

Supporters of carrier-based unmanned aircraft made a pitch to Congress last week to save funding for the US Navy’s unmanned combat air system demonstrator, UCAS-D. The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a think-tank, presented its case that a naval UCAS would transform US aircraft carriers by giving them a long-range, persistent strike and surveillance capability.

The case was based on the tactical benefits of an unmanned aircraft’s greater range and endurance. CSBA analysts did not bring up another argument – that cancelling UCAS-D would end carrier-based aircraft development in the USA.

Hang on, I hear you say, what about the F-35C carrier version of the Joint Strike Fighter? It hasn’t even flown yet!

The cloak of opaqueness that surrounds Euorpean defence programmes has parted slightly, with EADS acknowledging the Airbus A400M military transport is in trouble. We have all suspected it was, but as recently as June Airbus Military was insisting it would still meet the schedule despite engine development delays.

But in presenting its half-year financial results, EADS last week acknowledged:
- the heads of Airbus Military and the A400M have been replaced
- the consortium developing the TP400 engine is "critically late"
- first flight is now "summer 2008" (vs the first quarter)
- delivery planning is "likely affected" and "under reassessment"

Final assembly of the first A400M is to begin in August, but the true extent of the delays will not be known until a programme review is completed in October. Meanwhile thanks to EADS for lifting the curtain a little.

$7.6 billion in fighter contracts is not bad for a week's work - and it's only Wednesday. Over the last few days, Lockheed Martin has received $5 billion to produce 60 F-22s, $2.44 billion to begin work on 12 F-35s and a mere $187 million to start producing 30 more F-16s for Turkey.

Three contracts.

Three fighter programmes.

All Lockheed.

All significant in their own way.

Recognising that most Australian papers are as reliable a source of aviation news as British tabloids or the National Enquirer, I will point you towards a story in the Sydney Morning Herald that puts an interesting spin on the Royal Australian Navy's purchase of two amphibious landing ships.

The newspaper points out the Spanish-designed vessels will have ski jumps and the capability to operate short take-off and vertical landing Joint Strike Fighters, raising the possibility that the RAN might regain the carrier-based aviation capability it lost when HMAS Melbourne was retired in 1982.

The Royal Australian Air Force already plans to buy 100 conventional take-off and landing F-35As, so surely a few STOVL F-35Bs is not too much to ask for?

Flight's resident ocker, Peter La Franchi, reminds me he first wrote about the RAN wanting carriers five years ago. "The RAN wants carriers and the ships it has on order are air-capable," he says, "but the RAAF will never agree to fighters going on ships and that is a political battle the RAN cannot ever win."

Australia's new aircraft carrier...sorry, amphibious landing ship

US Congress has just been notified of the $1.96 billion sale to Taiwan of 12 surplus Lockheed P-3C Orion maritime-patrol aircraft. It's still classified as a "possible" sale because Congress could say no, but this deal has been in the works a long time...a long, long time.

The US first offered to sell a squadron P-3Cs to Taiwan in 2001 as part of a bigger arms package, but political inflghting in Taipei blocked approval of the special budget for years. The logjam finally broke in June when the Taiwanese legislature approved the Orion purchase.

Taiwan will be the 17th (military) operator of the P-3. It has already checked over the ex-US Navy aircraft in desert storage and picked out the airframes it wants (including three TP-3As for spares). Lockheed Martin will refurbish them to the Navy's current AIP standard, including replacing the wing to restore the full 15,000h fatigue life.

Finally, replacement is in sight for Taiwan's S-2Ts
(Jason Tu picture from www.taiwanairpower.org)

It was inevitable, perhaps: the UK and Italy - the only Eurofighter Typhoon partners that also plan to buy the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - are being forced to choose between the two aircraft, according to a report in The Times.

The Times says the UK Ministry of Defence is trying to find a way out of its committment to buy 88 more Tranche 3 Typhoons, and to reduce, delay or cancel the final order. Italy also wants to cut its Tranche 3 order, the report suggests.

Citing defence sources, The Times says the UK Treasury will not allow the MoD to buy both Tranche 3 Eurofighters and the 150 or so Lockheed Martin F-35Bs it wants. BAE Systems has a piece of both fighter programmes.

My first guess is the JSF will win - the F-35B is the only STOVL option to replace the UK's Harriers on land and at sea. The Royal Navy's new CVF carriers could operate conventional fighters, but are being designed around the JSF.

And because of delays in developing the Eurofighter's multi-role capability, the F-35 will enter service around 2014 with a greater combat potential.

But - and it is a big but - cancelling Tranche 3 Typhoons would leave the UK (and Italy) entirely at the mercy of the US budget process, which is capable of cutting, delaying and even cancelling the JSF programme without consideration of its allies.

Steve Trimble has posted new pictures of the Iranian-developed Saegheh fighter over on his blog, The DEW Line. Look past the Blue Angels colour scheme and you will see subtle but significant differences between the two aircraft featured that suggest Iran's "Lightning" is more than simply a reverse-engineered Tiger with two tails.

The first aircraft, presumably the earliest, looks pretty much like an F-5E and even the twin fins have a "tacked-on" appearance.

But the second aircraft, while similar in planform, has a number of differences including enlarged and reshaped inlets.

The first aircraft's inlets are F-5 sized and shaped. The second one (right) has rectangular inlets that appear larger, and the wing leading-edge root extensions are slightly different.

A closer look shows the second aircraft's intake trunk is bulged compared with the F-5E's classic "coke-bottle" shape, although the auxiliary inlet is still there.

The base of the fin also has a more faired-in appearance, so the second aircraft could be the production version. The reason for the inlet redesign is not clear as the nozzles of both aircraft look similar, suggesting the engines have not changed.

But maybe there is a bigger engine in the pipeline, making for a higher performing aircraft. Which might explain why they would spoil the classic lines of the F-5 by doubling up on tails.

Meanwhile, this picture from Tehran's military parade on 22 September shows two of the round-intake aircraft and one square-intake (top left)

Call me a sad old ex-engineer, but I still enjoy it when a new aeroplane flies. This time its Japan's Kawasaki P-X maritime patrol aircraft - now officially called the XP-1. Looks like a scaled-down DC-8 to me...

Time magazine has taken a hatchet to the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey in its latest US issue. Publishing its "special investigation" as the US Marine Corps deploys the tiltrotor to Iraq, Time makes its makes opinion clear on the cover: "It's unsafe. It can't shoot straight. It's already cost 30 lives and $20 billion..."

The "investigation", by Mark Thompson, is anything but "special". Fundamentally, it's a rehash of every criticism levelled at the V-22 since the programme began more than 20 years ago. Any valid concerns Thompson raises are lost amidst the shoddy reporting and biased writing.

Here I need to make clear that I want the V-22 to succeed. I think the tiltrotor has great potential. But I accept there are valid concerns that can be raised over the Osprey. It's cost and complexity are issues. Designing and building the V-22 has stressed Bell and Boeing. Learning to fly a tiltrotor safely and effectively has tested the Marine Corps.

But the Osprey is now in the hands of the Marines. They remain steadfastly committed to the aircraft and say they have developed tactics to exploit the tiltrotor's strengths and mitigate its weaknesses. They are also going into combat, and publicly acknowledge they may lose aircraft. But the Marines expect the V-22 to be more survivable than their aging CH-46 helicopters.

After spending $20 billion, it would be hard for the Marines to admit they did not get what they wanted in the Osprey. But it will also be hard to hide any fundamental deficiences in combat. Iraq will be a far more rigorous "special investigation" of the V-22 than any Time magazine article.

More details of the competitors for the US Air Force's KC-X tanker requirement are emerging as the contest gets down to the wire. Northrop Grumman now says it will likely switch the KC-30 from a converted passenger A330-200 to an A330-200F freighter if it wins. Meanwhile Boeing plans to assemble its USAF KC-767 Lego-style from parts of various 767 models. Here's how it would work:

Presentations given by both companies at last week's Air Force Association show can be found of Scott Hamilton's www.leeham.net website.

Time's attack on the V-22 Osprey has drawn surprisingly strong support for the US Marine Corps' tiltrotor transport from several quarters. In case you missed some of the responses, here are a few:

US defence analyst Loren Thompson says: "Time says V-22 lacks the "autorotation" capacity that allows helicopters to descend to a survivable landing if engines fail. Well duh: V-22 isn't a helicopter..."

Wired's Danger Room blog says: "We need the V-22 to haul people and stuff between the Navy's seabases and units ashore and to re-supply widely dispersed Marine teams engaged in counter-insurgency fights..."

Ward Carroll, who is quoted in the Time article and laments being protrayed as a critic, says on the Defense Tech blog: "That's what I get for attempting a complete thought with a reporter who's reverse engineering a story."

If you want to see Time journalist Mark Thompson defend his article, watch this Fox News report (and persevere through the loading and advertisement).

Assistant Marine Corps commandant Gen Robert Magnus has sent Time magazine a strongly worded defence of the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor in response to Mark Thompson's "flying shame" article. You can read the letter to the editor here: Download file

Magnus calls the article dated, inaccurate, unbalanced and misleading and says the MV-22B has been "rigorously tested and found to be ready and relevant for combat operations" and the Marine Corps has "no doubts" the Osprey is ready.

Time has also received a letter from American Helicopter Society executive director Rhett Flater saying the article gives "an outdated, sensationalistic and wholly inaccurate view of the V-22". Read the letter here: Download file It is a thorough rebuttal of Thompson's claims.

China-watching website sinodefence.com has posted perhaps the clearest picture yet of China's Z-10 attack helicopter. The site says the Z-10 first flew in 2003 and is expected to enter service in 2008-9.

Changhe Z-10 (sinodefence.com photos)

The Changhe-built Z-10 looks to be in the same class as the Agusta A129, Denel Rooivalk and Eurocopter Tiger. It has a five-blade main rotor and X-shaped tailrotor; targeting and pilotage sensors on the nose and gun underneath; sloped fuselage sides and stub wings carrying four Hellfire-class HJ-10 anti-tank missiles per side.

The Z-10 is powered by a pair of Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6C-67Cs, says sinodefence.com, but the bulged nacelle looks a little different on this aircraft. There is no side-facing exhaust as seen in other pictures on the site (right). Whether that white "chute" is an exhaust suppressor - or even part of the helicopter - I can't tell.

The Z-10 looks competent enough, but a lot depends on the quality of the sensors, weapons and communications networks - things you can't tell by looking a picture.

The US Defense Science Board has just released its report on the VSTOL/STOL airlift requirements to support the US Army's concept of "mounted aerial manoeuvre" - flying a fully equipped armoured force from an intermediate land or sea base directly to the battlefield.

The report is important to two camps: the US Army backing the Joint Heavy Lift rotorcraft (left) and the US Air Force backing the AMC-X (right, aka AJACS) replacement for the C-130.

(Artwork via www.secretprojects.co.uk)

Both camps are eyeing the Army's requirement to airlift payloads of up to 30t over distances of 250-500nm, using either fixed- or rotary-wing aircraft. And the report has good news and bad news for both.

On the subject of carting 30t of armoured fighting vehicle around the battlefield, the US Air Force's approach to airlifting the Army's weight-challenged FCS vehicles has become clearer with release of details of the planned Speed Agile concept demonstration.

The cool name reflects the Air Force's desire for "speed agility": high lift at low speeds for short take-off and landing from improvised airstrips combined with efficient cruise at speeds beyond Mach 0.8 - something traditional STOL aircraft are not good at.

The baseline specs for Speed Agile are revealing: at least 500nm radius carrying a nominal 29.5t payload at speeds above Mach 0.8, with a mid-mission hot-and-high landing and take-off in under 2,000ft - 1,500ft is desired.

And the cargo box looks familiar - it has the same 4m loading width as the Airbus A400M, which is fast becoming the standard for intra-theatre transport as payloads outgrow the C-130.

No-one gets to build a demonstrator for Speed Agile - the 34-month programme will involve concept design and windtunnel validation of low-speed and transonic performance. But it is one of a raft of Air Force Research Laboratory projects paving the way for AJACS - the Advanced Joint Air Combat System - planned as a replacement for the C-130.

STOL, speed, stealth - and sex appeal

Steve Trimble reveals that the Airbus A380 is a potential candidate to replace not only Air Force One, but also US Air Force Lockheed C-5 outsize airlifters. While it is hard to imagine the President of the United States flying around in the flagship of European aerospace, it makes sense they would want competition when it comes to replacing the Boeing 747s now used.

But while the USAF may only have requested information from Airbus as part of its review of the potentially overbudget C-5 re-engining programme, the prospect of the A380 Freighter replacing the C-5s is much more intriguing.

Boeing lost the C-5 competition to Lockheed in 1965, but used the acquired knowledge of large-aircraft design and high-bypass turbofans to launch development of the civil 747. The result was a monopoly of the "jumbo" market that lasted 37 years and officially ended only this month with the entry into airline service of the first A380.

Winning the C-5 competition almost bankrupted Lockheed. Losing the competition led Boeing to "bet the company" on developing the 747. The 747's market monopoly led Airbus to develop the A380, which plunged the European airframer into financial and operational turmoil.

If the A380F really is in the frame to replace the C-5s, can Boeing respond by offering the 748-8F? Or does it have to protect and prolong the C-17 production line, and in doing so risk the C-5 competition all over again?

Reuters is reporting that US Congressional negotiators have agreed to fund contined development of the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 alternate engine for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The Pentagon had sought to cancel the F136 to save money, and the $480 million in FY2008 funding will have to come from somewhere, but the preservation of a competitive engine choice is good news for the JSF programme, and for F-35 operators.

Although it looked likely, the F136's survival can't have been harmed by Pratt & Whitney's recent issues with its F135 primary engine. The failure of an engine on a test stand in late August has proved a problem for Lockheed as it works to get the first F-35 back in the air after a six-month hiatus.

US Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles have been cleared to fly, ending the grounding imposed following the 2 November crash of an F-15C caused by structural failure. The Es are the youngest Eagles, and there is no news yet on when the older A/Bs and C/Ds will be allowed back in the air. Presumably the Israelis and Saudis will follow suit in returning their F-15Is and Ss to flight while the older Eagles around the world stay on the ground.

Only a confirmed sceptic could argue the US Air Force over-reacted to the crash by indefinitely grounding almost 700 F-15s just to drive home its calls for more funding to replace its ageing aircraft fleets, but it got the attention of Congress. Six senators have demanded the Pentagon release three reports said to call for additional F-22s beyond the 183 the Air Force is planned to receive.

They were prompted by US defence analyst Loren Thompson who, in a typically forthright issue brief "Policymakers Suppress Expert Findings on Future Fighter", accuses the Pentagon of withholding the study results because each concluded 183 Raptors was not enough. The USAF says it needs 381, but would probably settle for 250.

Personally, I don't think a few new F-15Es would go amiss either.

"Move over!" - "Not yet, mate!" (US Air Force photo)

Reuters is reporting that the US Air Force plans to hold seperate day-long meetings with Boeing and Northrop Grumman to discuss their KC-X tanker bids, in the hope of avoiding a protest from the losing bidder when it announces the winner of the $40 billion contest in February.

The USAF is seriously gun shy after the KC-767 lease debacle and previous successfully upheld protests against contract awards ranging from the Small Diameter Bomb through the C-130 AMP avionics upgrade to the CSAR-X combat search-and-search helicopter.

In the case of CSAR-X, and after two rounds of protests, the USAF has just released its fifth amendment to the RFP and now hopes to award a contract after the middle of 2008 - at least 18 months after Boeing's HH-47 emerged as the unexpected winner of the original $15 billion competition.

The USAF's answer with KC-X and CSAR-X is to hold "face-to-face meetings...to foster open communications and ensure a mutual understanding". But will it prevent a protest? Since when did talking ensure understanding?

The estimated cost of re-engining and upgrading US Air Force Lockheed C-5 airlifters has increased almost 55% to $17.5 billion, according to the Pentagon's latest Selected Acquisition Reports (SAR), a quarterly report to Congress that makes depressing reading for taxpayers hoping for value from their defence dollar.

The latest SAR, which documents the performance of 94 procurements totalling almost $1.7 trillion, also reveals the estimated cost of the US Army's Bell ARH-70A Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter programme has increased almost 19% to just over $1 billion. The good news, of sorts, is they are the only programmes to experience such big increases this time round.

This SAR is likely to be controversial, as Lockheed Martin disagrees with the DoD's cost estimate and the USAF makes no secret that it wants Congress to lift its ban on retiring the oldest C-5s so it can buy more Boeing C-17s (or A380s?).

Things are beginning to look gloomy for the F-15. The US Air Force has so far found four [UPDATE - seven] Eagles with cracks in fuselage longerons and Air Combat Command has grounded all 442 of its F-15A to D models until further notice, even if they pass inspections intended to find the cracks. The decision comes after investigators discovered additional cracks in the Missouri Air National Guard F-15C that crashed on 2 November after suffering stuctural failure during air combat training.

The crash, groundings, inspections and discovery of other cracked longerons comes as the US Air Force mounts an intense campaign of lobbying (and some whining) for additional funding to replace its ageing fleets of fighters, transports, tankers and combat rescue helicopters (did I miss anything out?). I sympathise, but I also come from a country that kept the English Electric Canberra in front-line service for 50 years.

It will be expensive, but the USAF will have to live with the ageing Eagle a while longer. The aircraft has actually done quite well - F-16s had to go through the Falcon Up structural upgrade to stay in service and F-18s are going though a costly centre barrel replacement. All aircraft age - fighters especially - and the process has to be managed. The F-22 and F-35 that will replace the F-15 and F-35 better be designed to last 30 years - and capable of lasting 50 - or our grandchildren are in trouble.

Yes, it IS your grandfather's F-15 (USAF photo)

US Army aviation has had its modernisation tribulations, including cancellation of the Comanche and the recent struggles with Bell's ARH, but the Apache programme looks like a model for how to renew an ageing fleet - more than once. The AH-64s have been remanufactured once, from As to Ds, and are about to go through the process again as AH-64Ds are upgraded from Block IIs to Block IIIs.

It may be easier to remanufacture a helicopter, as it does not endure the fatigue-inducing G forces on a fighter, but judging by the state of Apaches returning from Iraq for reset - refurbishment before redeployment - they take a lot of punishment from blowing sand and flying bullets. And remanufacturing has enabled Boeing to keep the Apache line open so it can now build new AH-64Ds to replace aircraft lost in combat.

The US Army has already ordered 47 new Block II "wartime replacement aircraft" - WRAs - and just posted a pre-solicitation notice for 30 additional Block III WRAs it expects to procure with war-related supplemental funding - 12 in FY08, 12 in FY09 and six in FY10. In addition, the Army plans to award Boeing a contract to reman 24 more As to Ds. That will make a total of just under 700 AH-64Ds for the US Army, and will take Apache production beyond the 30-year mark.

Don't look for a replacement any time soon...

To see how the US Air Force can extend the life of an aircraft if it wants to, take a look at its T-38 Talon supersonic trainer. First flown in 1959, and last produced in 1972, the T-38 is planned to stay in service until 2020, thanks to extensive avionics and structural upgrades (the latter including new longerons...). Okay, it's a trainer, but that works out at almost 60 years!

There is no established requirement to replace the Talon, but manufacturers are already circling. Aermacchi is looking for a US prime to offer its M346 and Lockheed Martin displayed a model of South Korea's supersonic T-50 in USAF colours at a recent training show in the US. Lockheed was a little relucant the release an image, as it doesn't expect the USAF to articulate an advanced trainer requirement in the near future, but it's a reminder not even the Talon need last forever.

Lockheed Martin has rolled out the first supersonic STOVL F-35B Joint Strike Fighter. Think about those words - "supersonic" and "STOVL". I worked in future projects at Hawker Siddeley in the late 1970s, so I have an idea of how hard it is to get those two characteristics together in one aircraft. Most of the designs I worked on used Harrier-style vectored thrust, which put a big fat engine right in the middle of the airframe - not exactly what you want for supersonic fineness. Remember Boeing's X-32?

But the F-35B looks quite sleek. The secret is its shaft-driven lift fan, installed behind the cockpit under a massive rear-hinged door that engineers have dubbed "the 56 Chevy hood". The lift system allows the engine to produce about 40,000lb of vertical thrust without needing reheat. About half that comes from the lift fan and the rest from the roll posts and rear swivelling nozzle. The system worked extremely well on Lockheed's X-35B concept demonstrator.

The potential disadvantage could be its complexity. To transition from wingborne to jetborne flight, doors have to open, clutch engage, gearbox and two-stage contra-rotating fan spool up, vanes move and nozzle swivel. The process is automated to make it simple for the pilot, but there are still a lot of moving parts. As F-35B ground and flight testing gets under way in 2008, the reliability of the system will be a critical factor.

A closer look at the first F-35B shows the changes from the CTOL F-35A. The lift fan is visible behind the truncated canopy under the sloping door, which helps direct air in the fan in forward flight. The lip of the lift-fan duct, called the "horsecollar", is a revised design that smoothes the airflow into the duct and which has increased the fan's performance in engine ground tests. Behind the lift fan are the open doors of the auxilary inlet that provides extra airflow to the engine at low speed. Below the fan is the open door that covers the variable-area vane box nozzle, used to vector lift-fan thrust for hover flight control.

A couple of other changes are notable - the retractable refuelling probe fitted to the STOVL F-35B and F-35C carrier version, but not the US Air Force-standard F-35A. Also the two-piece nosegear doors, which replace the single-piece "barn door" that catches a little too much crosswind on the first F-35, aircraft AA-1.

Eurofighter has confirmed it has suspended talks with Norway and Denmark on offering the Typhoon to replace their F-16s, but has stopped short of commenting on press reports that it thinks the bidding process is slanted towards the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Bloomberg quotes from a letter sent by Eurofighter shareholder EADS to the Norwegian finance ministry saying that the consortium "continues to feel ill at ease with the current process".

Norway is due to make a fighter decision in 2008, Denmark by 2009 and both are also looking at the Saab Gripen. But the F-35 has always been the one to beat, given both countries' long association with Lockheed and the F-16. In fact, Lockheed is trying to pull together a multi-year, multi-country F-35 procurement similar to the 1975 "sale of the century" in which Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway purchased 348 F-16s.

The Typhoon also faces competition on the home front, with Eurofighter confirming reports that partner nations Italy and the UK are looking at shelving further orders. It is no coincidence that both countries are also planning to buy the F-35. Whether Eurofighter's withdrawal form Denmark and Norway is a ploy wll only become clear during 2008 - and year in which the F-35 programme has to deliver some significant results or questions will be asked.

Has US Air Force's decision to keep its F-15A-Ds grounded even if they pass checks for fatigue cracks that could cause structural failure backfired? Air Force Times is reporting the Pentagon has directed the USAF to take funds it hoped to use to keep the F-22 production line open and spend them instead on repairing its air-defence F-15s. Where this leaves the F-22 is not clear.

The money, almost $500 million, was budgeted to shut down the F-22 line after just 183 aircraft, but Air Force Times says the Pentagon had agreed the money could be used to buy long-lead items for another 20 aircraft. Now it is to be spent on the very Eagles the Raptor was intended to replace. But, while the USAF has only found longeron cracks in nine of its 442 F-15A-Ds, the attention generated by its extended grounding of the Eagles will ensure Congress weighs in on the issue when it marks up the FY2009 budget.

The Air Force, meanwhile, believes it has isolated the cause of the cracks that caused an F-15C to break apart in flight on 3 November, says macon.com. The fuselage longerons were designed to outlast the aircraft, but investigators have isolated a weakness in a splice joint. Replacement longerons have been ordered, but even if the grounding is lifted in January the USAF says it could take another six months for the idled Eagle pilots to get back up to speed.

For anyone, like me, who has grown older along with the Harrier, there is an interesting story in India Today prompted by the latest crash - the 17th - of an Indian Navy Sea Harrier. The story will seem familiar to anyone who has followed the Harrier's operating career, and safety record, over the last four decades.

Over that span of time, the "jump jet's" safety record has been a source of controversy more than once, but the unique operating advantages of V/STOL have ensured the Harrier's continued survival. And, as with other military fast jets, pilot training and proper maintenance has often been the solution to the problems.

But the narrow margin for error or failure when the vectored-thrust Harrier is in vertical flight is one reason why Lockheed's F-35 won the Joint Strike Fighter competition. It's shaft-driven lift fan promises wider operating and safety margins in vertical flight. It is also complex, and it's mechanical reliability will be paramount.

As the F-15 grounding has dragged on I have become increasingly concerned the US Air Force was going beyond the prudent demands of safety to make a very public and political point that its fighter fleet is getting old. Even before an Eagle broke apart in flight on 2 November USAF leaders were lobbying hard for funding to buy more F-22s than the 183 planned to replace its aging F-15s.

After the press briefing on the F-15 accident investigation at the Pentagon on 10 January I accept the Air Force has been correct to be cautious, but I remain convinced it is exploiting the Eagle's issues to reinforce its case for more Raptors. I also firmly believe the grounding and its consequences are the USAF's own fault.

The Woracle listens as Gen Corley (left) defends his F-15 grounding decision

As for the crash and its cause, having seen the evidence presented (check out flightglobal's special report) it was clearly a nasty accident that the pilot was lucky to survive. And, with an average age of 25 years, the Eagles clearly have worrying fatigue issue made worse by sloppy manufacturing processes (by today's standards) back when McDonnell Douglas built them.

Where I draw the line is at Air Combat Command chief Gen John Corley's remark at the press conference that the while US Air Force will have to hold on to its aging F-15s for several more years the US Navy was able to retire its similar-vintage F-14s a couple of years ago. Not because it is a false statement - but because it is patently disingenuous.

The USAF has had to hold on to the F-15s because its replacement, the F-22, took so long to develop and costs so much to produce. The US Navy was able to retire its F-14s because it chose to upgrade its F/A-18 rather than take the time and spend the money to develop an all-new so-called "fifth generation" fighter.

I can be argued the Navy had no other choice after the debacle of the A-12, but voluntary or not it has worked out well for naval aviators. They have new-build fighters coming off the Boeing production line at more the twice the rate of the F-22 and, in the Block 2 Super Hornet, they have perhaps the most capable multi-role fighter now flying.

The USAF's "big bang" approach to replacing the F-15 - putting all of its development and procurement resources into a totally new platform - may have resulted in a superb and stealthy fighting machine, but one that is so expensive it will replace only a fraction of the Eagle fleet. It is an "all or nothing" approach the Air Force is repeating with the F-35, which is intended to replace not only the F-16 but also the A-10.

Air Force leaders have repeatedly dismissed the idea of buying new F-15s and F-16s from production lines that are still delivering aircraft to export customers - aircraft that are more capable than those the USAF itself operates. By doing so, they hold themselves hostage to the procurement costs and development hurdles of the F-22 and F-35.

Corley also made the point that the "brittle bone" problems of a fatigue-aged fleet "are systemic and go beyond the F-15". So watch out - once the USAF has convinced DoD and Congress to let it keep buying F-22s, we will start to hear more tales of woe about F-16 bulkheads and A-10 wings...

"Remind me, how do I get into this thing?" (USAF photo)

Boeing and Northrop Grumman have submitted their final bids, and the KC-X competition is moving into its final weeks - we fervently hope. The PR onslaught hasn't stopped, however, with Northrop making an 11th-hour commitment to assemble the Airbus A330 Freighter in Mobile, Alabama if the USAF picks its KC-30. Boeing retaliated with a study showing a 767 burns less fuel than an A330 - therefore, QED, the KC-767 will save the Air Force beaucoup billions.

Meanwhile, here in DC, Boeing and Northrop have scheduled back-to-back briefings for us jaundiced journos to make their final (we hope) KC-X pitches. Northrop is tomorrow (Tuesday), but Boeing got in first, offering us breakfast with retired general Ron Fogelman, a former US Air Force chief of staff.

I liked Fogelman when he was chief of staff. A former fighter pilot who had also headed Air Mobility Command, he always seemed down to earth. Today, the first words he said were: "I am a paid consultant for Boeing." We knew that, but he won brownie points for upfront honesty. Fogelman is also on Boeing's "win strategy steering committee" for KC-X, and his role today was to provide his perspective as a former "customer, employer and provider" of aerial refuelling.

Basically that came down to backing Boeing's belief the KC-767 is the right size for the Air Force's KC-135 replacement requirements. In Fogelman's words, those requirements are for a new tanker, first and foremost; optimised for aerial refuelling, en route and in theatre; and providing the maximum number of tails from the minimum number of airfields. "Secondary attributes are important, but not critical to a tanker. This fight should not be won based on secondary attributes."

Here are some of the other things said:

Size: Northrop promotes the greater cargo and passenger capacity of its larger KC-30, but Fogelman said he was "hard over" against Boeing offering the even larger 777. He cited basing limitations including "maximum on ground" capacity, runway length and load-bearing tolerance.

Utility: There has been talk of using KC-Xs equipped with defensive systems to transport troops into combat zones, but Fogelman doubts the initial tranche of 179 aircraft will ever be used that way. "The aircraft are too valuable," he said.

Split buy: Splitting the KC-X buy between Boeing and Northrop Grumman would be "dumb as a stump" from the operator's persective, Fogelman said, because it would drive up life-cycle costs. "A spilt buy would be a non-decision, and should be an absolute non-starter."

Avoiding a protest: Asked if he had any advice for the current Air Force chief of staff in today's protest-prone acquisition environment, Fogelman said: "Establish the requirements, insist the decision be made on military utility, and don't get down into the political."

Welcome back to KC-Xtown. Tuesday opened with both sides taking shots at each other's Monday announcements: EADS's commitment to assemble A330 Freighters in Mobile if Northrop's KC-30 wins; and Boeing's release on the KC-767's fuel burn. The latter raised some eyebrows and generated some pithy comment in the blogosphere, including Steve Trimble on The DEW Line and Bill Sweetman on Ares.

Tuesday was Northrop's turn to brief the press, choosing lunchtime in the National Press Club, where KC-30 programme manager Paul Meyer did a comprehensive demolition job on Boeing's KC-X proposal. The crux of Northop's message: that the KC-30 offers lower risk and more capability at comparable cost to the KC-767.

Here are the highlights of Meyer's pitch:

Risk: Northrop's proposal is baselined on the KC-30B already in flight-test for Australia, with the same cockpit, engines, boom and pods. The KC-767 proposed for KC-X is a never-been-built amalgum of the 767-200, -300 and -400 with a new "sixth-generation" boom.

Capability: The KC-30 can carry more fuel, cargo and passengers. Boeing questions whether the USAF can or will use this supplemental capability in an aircraft intended to replace the KC-135 tanker. But even just in the refuelling role, Northrop says the KC-30 has a higher "fleet effectiveness value" - FEV - than the KC-767, calculated using the same methodology that the USAF is using in the source-selection evaluation. One reason - a KC-30 returning from a refeulling orbit can use any surplus fuel to top up a tanker en route to the orbit.

Cost: Northrop believes the KC-30's unit cost is "comparable" to the KC-767's. It expects the "most probable life-cycle cost" - the cost metric the USAF will evaluate - to be higher because the KC-30 is a larger aircraft that will burn more fuel and cost more to maintain. But Northrop believes the KC-30's extra capability will offset its higher cost when the USAF comes to calculate "best value".

Avoiding a protest: Neither side is ruling out the possibility of the losing bidder protesting the contract award, but Meyer believes the USAF's efforts to make the process as transparent as possible will mean that both sides will know exactly why they won, or lost. This could - should - reduce the chance of a protest.

Indian newspapers are full of stories (like this one) that Lockheed will offer India an advanced version of the F-16 with supercruise capability. That's the ability to cruise supersonically without reheat and it is a key feature of the stealthy F-22. Well the stories are not quite correct.

Here's what happened. Lockheed was briefing a group on Indian journalists on the F-16 and one of them asked about supercruise. A helpful test pilot volunteered that he has flown the F-16 supersonically without reheat. The story was born, but can the F-16 supercruise? Not really.

Lockheed says a clean F-16, with only wingtip missiles, can reach Mach 1.1 without reheat. But the company says supercruise is defined as the ability to fly faster than Mach 1.5, in combat configuration. The USAF's F-22 factsheet suggests it can supercruise at Mach 1.75.

So what will India be offered for its 126-aircraft MMRCA requirement? Lockheed says it will propose "the most advanced F-16 version yet", although is a lot of "similar to the Block 60" in its description of the F-16IN. It's not providing details yet, as the bids are not in, but the F-16IN will have advanced displays, conformal tanks, the latest engine and, assuming export approval, active electronically scanned array radar.

The F-16IN will likely be a very capable fighter - just not a supercruiser.

"Who needs to supercruise...!" (USAF photo)

Unmanned combat aircraft development in the US of A has taken an unusual turn. After the success of the pioneering X-45A UCAV demonstration, the follow-on J-UCAS programme was cancelled when the US Air Force withdrew. This left the US Navy leading a smaller programme to demonstrate a carrier-based low-observable UCAS.

On the face of it, the US gave up its lead in unmanned combat aircraft, giving Britain's Taranis, Europe's Neuron and even Russia's Skat a chance to catch up. But while the Navy's X-47B UCAS-D programme may be smaller in dollar terms than J-UCAS, it tackles two extremely difficult challenges: co-existing with manned aircraft and operating from a carrier.

The US Navy does not have the luxury of keeping its manned and unmanned combat aircraft separate, in the air or on the carrier flightdeck. Every Naval UCAS that goes on a ship will displace a manned aircraft, so they have to be interchangable. This creates challenges a land-based UCAVs don't need to face. Northrop Grumman has developed a presentation - a "day in the life" of N-UCAS - that goes some way to describing the challanges, and solutions.

The day begins with N-UCAS in the hangar deck...

Not sure what to make of this story. Aviation Week's defence guru Dave Fulghum has come away from an interview with Boeing's F/A-18 programme boss Bob Gower with news the company plans a more advanced Block 3 Super Hornet and is working on a "sixth generation" fighter. According to Dave, Boeing thinks this pair will make a better package than Lockheed's "fifth-generation" F-22 and F-35.

So far, Boeing has avoided playing the generation game with Lockheed, although its Block 2 F/A-18E/F is widely and unofficially classified as "4.5 generation". Dave suggests the stealthier, longer-range Block 3 Super Hornet would be "4.75 generation". Boeing's sixth-generation fighter, meanwhile, would be available around 2024 and would be even stealthier and longer-legged, he says.

It will be interesting to see what the US Navy makes of Boeing's plans. So far, the Navy has stayed faithful to the F-35C Joint Strike Fighter despite its delays, and the only inkling of any future fighter plans has been a recent Navy reference to the Northrop X-47B unmanned combat air system demonstrator as a "critical step toward F/A-XX".

Maybe they mean the FA-37, from the movie Stealth....

Northrop's E-2 Hawkeye is operated by seven customers, only two of which have aircraft carriers. More countries operate the "Hummer" than any one of the other AEW platforms, but the E-2 is regarded as a niche player within a niche market. Almost every other aircraft flies faster, goes higher and stays up longer, but for its operators the Hawkeye was the best - sometimes only - AEW option available at the time.

But time moves on, and the airborne early warning and control market has bloomed. Where there was once just the big-jet E-3 AWACS and twin-prop E-2 Hawkeye, there are now the Boeing 737 AEW&C, Embraer EMB-145SA, IAI/Gulfstream G550 CAEW and Saab Ericsson Erieye. And there are others.

The Hawkeye's hold to the market has been eroding. Israel retired its E-2Cs, selling them to Mexico, and is replacing them with G550s. Singapore has ordered the Israeli-equipped CAEW to replace its Hawkeyes. Now Northrop thinks it can get back into the market with the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye under development for the US Navy.

How's this for timing? The day after the Pentagon says it will try again to cancel the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 alternative engine for the F-35, the Lexington Institute defence think-tank publishes a study arguing "one engine is enough" to power the Joint Strike Fighter. Either the Institute's Loren Thompson worked through the night or he knew what was coming. Knowing Loren, it was the latter.

The Pentagon tried to cancel the F136 last year, but Congress put the money back into the budget. So eliminating funding for the GE/R-R engine (right, in afterburner) from the defence department's FY2009 budget request sets the stage for another showdown with the lawmakers. It will be interesting to see what influence the Lexington Institute's report has on this year's debate.

No one argues that annual competitions to power the JSF would bring down the purchase price of the engines, or that having two powerplants would avoid the potential for an engine-related grounding of the entire F-35 fleet. But do the advantages outweigh the extra cost of developing, producing and supporting two engines over their service lives? Most DoD studies - and the Lexington report - say no.

So it comes down to the emotive issue of industrial base and keeping GE in the fighter engine business. Citing GE's domination of the commercial engine market, Loren Thompson argues that keeping the alternative JSF engine would probably cement the company's dominance over domestic rival Pratt & Whitney "until mid-century, of not forever".

F-35 keeps flying on Pratt power as argument continues

The Pentagon boffins have been keeping mum, but the DoD's fiscal year 2009 budget request lifts the lid on Blackswift - DARPA's prototype hypersonic aircraft. Formerly the Falcon HTV-3X, and being designed by Lockheed's Skunk Works, the unmanned Blackswift is intended to take off conventionally on turbojet power, transition to scramjets, cruise at Mach 6 for an extended period, then return to a runway landing. If it succeeds, Blackswift will be a worthy successor to the Skunk Works' Blackbird.

Sharon Weinberger at Wired's Danger Room was first to blow Blackswift's cover, and in January alerted us to an InsideDefense story that DARPA was to seek $750 million for the demonstration programme. DARPA's FY2009 request is for $70 million on top of the $35 million to be spent in FY2008. Here's what DARPA's budget documentation has to say:

"The Blackswift Test Bed program will develop an extended duration hypersonic test bed which will allow for the study of tactics for a hypersonic airplane that includes a runway take-off, Mach 6 cruise and runway landing. This test bed is an evolution of the reusable Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle developed under the Falcon program.

"Key technologies that will be demonstrated include efficient aerodynamic shaping for high lift to drag, lightweight and durable (reusable) high-temperature materials and thermal management techniques including active cooling, autonomous flight control, and turbine-based combined cycle propulsion.

"It is envisaged that flying this hypersonic aircraft test bed in a relevant, flight environment will permit the futire development of enhanced-capability reusable high-speed vehicles for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, strike and other national need missions. This program will transition to the Air Force following completion of flight-testing."

DARPA's Falcon programme continues, with two unpowered, rocket-boosted HTV-2 hypersonic test vehicles scheduled to be flown in FY09 to pave the way for Blackswift. The Skunk Works, meanwhile, is to complete the Blackswift preliminary design and ground test the integrated high-speed turbojet and scramjet propulsion system by the end of FY09. No news yet on when Blackswift might fly, but it should look like this...

I've taken the bullet on your behalf and ploughed through DARPA's fiscal year 2009 budget request to look for goodies. Here's what I've found.

New programmes for FY09:

Multi-Modal Missile - manportable surface-to-surface and surface-to-air weapon with direct and indirect fire modes against vehicles, bunkers, helicopters and UAVs.

Small UAV Strike Munition - inexpensive, lightweight precision-guided submunition to be delivered by a loitering weapon launched from an unmanned aircraft.

Stealthy, Persistent, Perch and Stare (SP2S) - a VTOL micro air vehicle based on the Aerovironment Wasp that will land on a perch, collect data and fly home.

FY09 funding for existing programmes:

Heliplane - $16m to demonstrate the tipjet-driven rotor for Groen Brothers' high-speed gyroplane (assuming they succeed in FY08 in cutting tipjet noise by more than 10dB)

Oblique Flying Wing - $29.6m to begin construction of the unmanned X-plane demonstrator for Northrop Grumman's supersonic, tailless variable-sweep asymmetric flying wing.

CASTLE - $7.5m to complete preliminary design of a persistent, unmanned gunship to be armed with electromagnetic guns, directed-energy weapons or vertical-launch missiles.

Rapid Eye - $15.9m to complete preliminary design of a rapid-reaction HALE UAV to be rocket-deployed from the US to anywhere in the world in 1-2h for ISR and comms missions.

Vulture - $11m to begin building a subscale demonstrator for a "pseudo-satellite" ISR UAV able to stay on station for more than five years. The demonstator goal is a year-long flight.

Timing is everything. Bad timing is breaking your engine on the very day your customer tries for a third time to cancel your rival and a new report rubbishes the benefits of competing engines. But that's what happened to Pratt & Whitney on February 4, when a turbine blade on an F135 Joint Strike Fighter engine broke during "proof testing". That was the day the Pentagon told Congress it still intends to cancel the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 alternative engine.

The blade problem is not news. That's why the engine was being proof tested, to see if it was susceptible to a unique blade vibration that causes high-cycle fatigue. This follows a blade failure on a test stand in August last year. What is news is that this latest incident will delay the first flight of Lockheed Martin's F-35 STOVL JSF, which was scheduled for mid-year.

The two blades that have failed so far were in STOVL F135s - Pratt thinks the problem is tied to the heavier load on the third turbine stage in the STOVL engine, because the low-pressure turbine has to work harder to power the shaft-driven lift fan. The latest engine to fail was to power the first F-35B - aircraft BF-1 - now Pratt will have to proof-test a replacement engine, which will delay the start of STOVL ground testing by a month - maybe more, they don't know yet.

The US Marine Corps has just released this rare image of an MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor operating in Iraq - there are green rotor-tip lights, the Marines now tell me. (US Navy photo)

I'm no expert on Chinese defence, or on the trustworthiness of the various websites that cover Chinese defence, but there is an interesting analysis on two possible new Chinese air-to-air missiles by Richard Fisher at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, which describes itself as a think-tank on security issues.

China's AIM-9X-class short-range AAM? (from wforum.com)

The two missiles are the short-range, infrared-guided PL-ASR, or PL-10, which resembles South Africa's Denel R-Darter, and the PL-13, a ramjet-powered derivative of the medium-range, active-radar PL-12. The PL-13 (or is it PL-21?) looks roughly equivalent to Europe's MBDA Meteor.

If their existence is confirmed, these missiles - like the Chengdu J-10 and Shenyang J-11B fighters they will arm - look pretty competent. Check out Chinese Military Aviation and decide for yourself.

After some positive press in the past week, when the Marine Corps praised the tiltrotor's performance so far in Iraq, the week ended on a down note when an MV-22 was forced to land near Greenville, NC, after a panel fell off an engine nacelle. No damage was done and the aircraft returned home to MCAS New River the next day.

Meanwhile, the Marines' first progress report since the Osprey deployed to Al Anbar province in October makes clear most of the Thunder Chickens' 1,400-plus sorties and 2,000-plus flight hours in theatre have been "battlefield circulation" and "governance" missions - in other words transporting officers, Iraqi leaders and others around the area of operations. Not surprisingly, the tiltrotor's speed is appreciated by its passengers.

Only recently have the MV-22s begun roving aeroscout missions to hunt for insurgents and the tiltrotors had taken part in one pre-planned raid by the end of January. So, for now, the Osprey gets a passing grade.

It's been a contentious week in the US fifth-generation fighter business, with the Department of Defense and US Air Force taking diametrically opposed positions on whether more F-22s are needed. The DoD has made clear it thinks 183 F-22s are enough (plus another 4 in the FY09 war supplemental). The USAF is adamant it needs 381, and can find a way to pay for them.

Steve Trimble over on The DEW Line calculates, at $150 million a copy, it will cost the USAF almost $30 billion to buy the Raptors it wants. That money will have to come from other programmes - and the DoD's fear is it will come from the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is intended not only for the Air Force, but also the Navy and Marine Corps (not to mention lots of US allies!).

Raptor - endangered species?

It emerged during the week that the DoD sees the F-35, and not the F-22, as the likely replacement for any F-15s that have to be retired because of structural problems. Quite a turn-around given the F-22 was designed to replace the "high" F-15 and the F-35 the 'low" F-16. The USAF disagrees, of course, but the argument casts the DoD's opinion of the JSF's capability in an interesting light.

Here are some of the competing statements made over the past week:

On the eve of its annual winter get-together in Orlando, the US Air Force has finally cleared all of its much-grounded, much-inspected, much-speculated-about F-15s to return to flight. All bar the nine out of some 440 A- to D-model Eagles found to have the same longeron cracks that caused an F-15 to break up in flight in early November.

The USAF argues it was justified on safety grounds in keeping the Eagles grounded for so long, although it has finally released even those with suspect longerons for flight without repair, without restrictions and with only the requirement for recurrent checks every 400h (provided they pass one last inspection).

Safety is essential, and the USAF has lost three F-15s since they began returning to flight in January - two on 19 February when they collided over the Gulf of Mexico - none of them to structural failure. But it's hard to shake the belief the Air Force stretched this grounding out to make a point about its aging fleet, and its need for more F-22s to replace the F-15s.

On that very subject, the USAF has been forced to disavow the recent comments of a senior officer who said what many believe to be true - that the Air Force will get its 380 Raptors by hook or by crook. "The Air Force wholeheartedly supports the President's budget request for the F-22 program," the statement says.

Well no surprise there, because what that budget request does is not close the F-22 line, so leaving the decision on whether to buy more to Congress and the next Administration. But the statement also says: "The Air Force and the DoD share the same desired end state." Well the DoD's idea of an end state seems clear - 187 Raptors.

I'm going to stick my neck out and predict Boeing will not protest the award of the KC-X tanker contract to Northrop and Airbus. Boeing gets debriefed by the US Air Force today (7 March) and will decide over the weekend whether to protest. But I don't think they will find anything to fault in Air Force's source selection from the moment the final RFP was released on 30 January last year to the 29 February announcement that Northrop had won.

But...

I suspect Boeing lost before the bids even went in. I think the last-minute changes that were made before the final RFP was released - subtle adjustments that were made because Northrop was threatening not to bid, and the USAF desperately needed a competition - changed the character of that competition.

Boeing has just come out of its debriefing (7 March) with the US Air Force and issued this statement :

“We spent several hours with Air Force leaders, listening and probing, all in an effort to better understand the reasoning behind their decisions,” said Mark McGraw, Boeing vice president and program manager of the KC-767 tanker. “While we are grateful for the timely debriefing, we left the room with significant concerns about the process in several areas, including program requirements related to capabilities, cost and risk; evaluation of the bids and the ultimate decision.

“What is clear now is that reports claiming that the Airbus offering won by a wide margin could not be more inaccurate,” said McGraw.

“Our plan now is to work through the weekend to come to a decision on our course of action early next week,” said McGraw. “It will be a very rigorous and deliberative process to ensure we’re balancing the needs of the warfighter with our desire to be treated fairly. For decades Boeing has been recognized as a defense company that never takes lightly protests of our customers’ decisions.”

Will I be proved wrong?

Boeing is still deliberating whether to protest the award of the USAF's KC-X tanker contract to Northrop and Airbus, but has been kind enough to provide the world with an update - proving protests are as newsworthy as contracts. Here are some excerpts:

"As we have gone through this process it has become clearer that this competition was much closer than has been reported, and that raises the stakes if the process was flawed and unfair in any way," said Mark McGraw [KC-767 program manager]. "We have serious concerns over inconsistency in requirements, cost factors and treatment of our commercial data."

Some reports suggest the KC-767 bid was hurt by Boeing Commercial's unwillingness to share spares pricing data in case it harmed its airline business. Boeing responds:

"It was clear from the Request for Proposals that the Air Force was seeking a commercial derivative tanker. However, by treating the Boeing offering as a military aircraft, the process by which the commercial cost/price data provided by Boeing Commercial Airplanes was evaluated has raised significant concerns," McGraw said. "We provided unprecedented insight into Boeing commercial cost/price data...We believe this data was treated differently than our competitor's information."

And, on the subject of whether Boeing misread the requirements and offered the wrong size aeroplane:

"Our proposal was based on the stated criteria in the Air Force's Request for Proposal, with a specific focus on providing operational tanker capability at low risk and the lowest total life cycle cost," McGraw said. "We stand by our offering and believe that it did, and continues to, best meet the requirements."

Boeing has just issued a "tanker factors" backgrounder [download file] giving its take on the US Air Force's assessment of its KC-X tanker bid against the five evaluation criteria. It suggests Boeing is narrowing in on reasons for protesting the award of the contract to Northrop and Airbus. Basically it says:

Mission capability: Boeing's bid had "significantly more strengths" than Northrop's;

Proposal risk: Northrop/EADS's plan to assemble and complete the A330 tanker in the US "should have been assessed greater risk";

Past performance: Both were rated satisfactory, but revelant programmes for Airbus - Australia's KC-30 tanker and the A400M - "are struggling";

Cost/price: US Air Force adjustments to Boeing's "significantly lower" cost estimate deprived it of the benefit of its in-line production approach;

Integrated fleet aerial refuelling assessment: Northrop developed the analytical model used by the USAF and changes to the model "before and after RFP release" allowed a larger aircraft to compete.

It's getting very interesting...

Boeing is to protest the KC-X tanker award to Northrop and Airbus. The company says it will provide details of its protest tomorrow (11 March) when it files with the Government Accountability Office, meanwhile here's what Boeing is saying:

“Our team has taken a very close look at the tanker decision and found serious flaws in the process that we believe warrant appeal,” said Jim McNerney, Boeing chairman, president and chief executive officer.

“Based upon what we have seen, we continue to believe we submitted the most capable, lowest risk, lowest Most Probable Life Cycle Cost airplane as measured against the Air Force’s Request for Proposal,” McNerney said.

So I was wrong. Better put down those tins of Air Force grey paint for now, Northrop.

The US Air Force is retiring its Lockheed F-117s, 27 years after the stealth fighter first flew in secret and two decades after it was revealed to the public. I remember being at the formal roll-out - of the last F-117. Must have been 1990. At the Skunk Works in Palmdale, California. I was amazed the thing could fly. "Give me fly-by-wire," Ben Rich said, "and I can make a brick fly." I believed him.

Being based in the UK, I had watched the months leading up to the F-117's public "reveal" with detached interest. I still find it hard to get excited about stealth, but I can't deny the F-117 is an impressive engineering achievement. And its roles in the opening attacks of Operations Just Cause, Desert Storm, Allied Force and Iraqi Freedom are testament to its unique capability.

"Nope, no Bill Sweetman in here" (USAF photo)

As if there wasn't enough information, disinformation and misinformation already circulating about the KC-X tanker competition, now the pro-Boeing, anti-EADS tankerblog.com is trying to dirty the water. Claiming to provide "facts and commentary" on the tanker issue, so far it has offered up little other than tired innuendo. At least the authors make clear their anti-EADS stance.

If you want real information, check out Amy Butler's latest report for Aviation Week. She focuses on concerns with the analytical model used by the USAF to evaluate the refuelling effectivess of the rival tankers. I suspect the role this Northrop-developed modelling tool played in the contest could be the pivot on which Boeing's KC-X protest is balanced.