August 2007 Archives

Last week, I asked you to come up with the top five military aviation headlines of the year for 2017.

If even a few of these (mostly) plausible predictions come true, we are all in for a very interesting decade in the defense business. Thanks to my many contributors for ... well, contributing.

Here's the full list so far, but please keep the ideas coming.

Posted by HerkEng
1. USAF Still looking for someone to re wing the C-130Hs
2. USAF looking for foreign buyers of its unused C-130Js
3.KC-30 names the most disappointing AF Purchase in 60 years.
4.Boeing B-52H re-engined and still going strong for another 40 years.
5. Final C-17 retired.

Posted by Glenn:
1. V-22 fleet grounded again due to premature stress cracking
2. New Marine One finally reaches IOC
3. Nation's air traffic control system near collapse after failure of $35 billion overhaul; air taxi services grind to a halt
4. F-35 STOVL variant cancelled; standard F-35 unit cost spirals past $100 million as Air Force seeks bids for F-16 re-engine program
5. B-1 finally retired; B-52 soldiers on

Posted by Robot Economist:
1. USAF finally declares tactical laser 'a dud,' cancels research program.
2. Army will keep Apache, Chinook another 20 years; Predator, A-10 to join Army fleet.
3. U.S. commits all 91 F-22s to Taiwan Strait crisis.

Posted Hillarie Clintons:
1. Mexico announces the selection of Lockheed for border security contract.
2. China forgives most of the U.S. debt in exchange for technology rights of secret satellites.
3. Boeing exploring ways to divest itself of the shipbuilding operations of its Northrop Grumman subsidiary.
4. EADS announces they plan to "fully" cooperate in the Tanker investigation that has led to doubling of the cost estimates and delayed deliveries.
5. Top secret documents released today revealed that stealth technology stemmed from alien wreckage discovered in New Mexico.

Posted by Ran Barton:
1. Unmanned KC-767's enable unmanned biofuel B-52s to stay airborne for a week. Next up: aerial rearmament
2. USAF prepares test flight of EF-22G across international dateline
3. North Koreans Protest Continued JASDF F-22J Overflights
4. Northrop Prepares 6th and final B-2C "Spirit of Puerto Rico" for USAF delivery
5. GAO chides Airbus for inadequate risk reduction in its KC-350XWB program

Thanks to my sharp-eyed, French-speaking colleague Aimee Turner, we now know that Connecticut-based Hamilton Sundstrand has moved its entire propeller business off-shore -- and to France, of all places.

Perhaps not surprisingly, you won't find a press release announcing the outsourcing move that affects about 100 US jobs on Hamilton's web site. Flight magazine's Aimee Turner, who is based in London, found out by reading a French language email sent by Hamilton's French subsidiary -- Ratier Figeac, the lucky beneficiary of Hamilton's 80-year-old heritage in the propeller business. Aimee's news story in this week's magazine is the only place you're likely to read about this truly historic aviation milestone in English.

Hamilton's propellers powered Charles Lindbergh's Ryan monoplane across the Atlantic in 1927, not to mention nearly all the fighter planes built in US factories for World War II. The company still is at the forefront of the technology, with the six-bladed NP2000 propeller powering Snow Aviation's refurbished C-130s and the Northrop Grumman E-2C, as well as a new, 8-bladed turboprop destined for the Airbus A400M transport.

That entire historical and technical legacy now resides with Ratier-Figeac in Southern France. Why? Most likely, it's because Hamilton Sundstrand realizes that's where the market exists for turboprop transports, with Sweden's Saab Aircraft, Italy's ATR and Spain's EADS CASA division now among the technological leaders.

If my hunch is correct, Hamilton's logic mirrors the recent trend by European firms to move wholesale manufacturing of helicopters and military transports to the US. And don't forget Airbus. I struggle to believe the proposed Airbus factory in Mobile, Alabama is intended solely for assembling 12 tankers a year for the US Air Force, especially when the company admits the facility will be sized to build 20 aircraft -- and with room to grow! In 10 years, Airbus will need to build a successor for the single-aisle A320, and sunny Toulouse may be no match for the non-unionized labor climate of the southeast USA.

"We'll always have Paris"(Source: DOD)

Ike Eisenhower got it wrong when he called it the "military-industrial complex". It's really the military-industrial-and-congressional complex, and each component plays an equal part in the long history of flubs and scandals involving the process of developing and buying weapons.

At least, that's the message of a book I just finished called "The C-5A Scandal", by Berkeley Rice. Don't rush to your bookstore. This book was published in 1971, but used copies are still available for sale.

To sum up, the C-5A scandal of the late-1960s was really a "perfect storm" of acquisition crimes: an overtly suspicious contract award to Lockheed even though Boeing won the evaluation; cost overruns that ballooned by 300% beyond the original estimates; an insider trading investigation; a large defense contractor on the brink of insolvency; a powerful Congressman who fought colleagues seeking accountability; and, finally, a host of technical problems with the aircraft itself, including a wing prone to cracking. In the end, Lockheed was bailed out with extra government cash and loans and the air force got its prized strategic airlifter.

I'll skip to the last page. Berkeley writes: "It's troubles had little to do with the plane itself. Rather, they are the natural result of the military-industrial-congressional system that produced it. Unfortunately, most of what happened to the C-5A happens to all military procurement programs. C-5As will continue to happen unless the public demands a change in the system. Until then, the public will have no choice but to continue paying the bills."

I think you may have a point, Mr. Berkeley.

We knew that this contract award (see second item) last Friday looked like bad news for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), but it turned out to be even worse than we thought.

To cut to the chase, the contract was awarded because the F-35C's power generator was mistakenly designed to offer only two-thirds of the maximum electric output that the carrier-based jet needs. That means if the pilot needs to move all the control surfaces at the same time in a hard maneuver, he'd blow out the jet's electrical system.

In turn, that meant Lockheed Martin needed to get its subcontractor to redesign the power generator to provide 33% more electricity.

If that was the end of the story, then the design flaw would likely still be a tightly-held program secret.

The reason: the generator is made by Hamilton Sundstrand, a Lockheed subcontractor. Lockheed can privately contract with its subcontractor to fix a part, and nobody in the public ever has to be the wiser.

Fortunately, such a huge increase in power output meant that it wasn't just the generator that needed redesigning.

Pratt & Whitney happens to build the gearbox that transfers the power coming off the F135 engine into energy that can be used by the generator. Luckily, the US government contracts separately with Pratt for engine components on the JSF program, so it must publicly award a contract to Pratt to redesign the part.

That's where I come in. After such a mysteriously ominous contract award is announced, it's my job to call the companies to ask for an explanation. In my experience, Lockheed has always moved quickly to answer my questions, and -- thankfully -- they did so again this time, which allowed us to publish this news story in next week's magazine.

So -- thanks to Pratt's involvement in the program -- we all know about this serious design problem. But doesn't it make you wonder about all the things we don't know?

This press release issued yesterday may not look like much, but it announces a new project that -- and I'll word this carefully to avoid drifting into hyperbole -- could forever change the world as we know it.

I'll explain: Gallium Nitride is a semiconductor material that can transform that cell phone in your pocket into a high powered microwave transmitter. It could render the iPhone about as sophisticated as my first digital wristwatch.

The only reason it's not in the mass market today is because manufacturing the material is so expensive that it would cost you as much to buy a cell phone as a new car (although, with the iPhone, clearly that gap is already narrowing) .

But this press release announces that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is seeking to seed the development of a low-cost manufacturing technique that will soon make Gallium Nitride far more affordable to produce. Assuming the method works, this will certainly benefit electronics consumers like you and me, but also, not least, the US military.

Military electronics already operate in the highest bands of the spectrum, but are usually powered by very large travelling wave tubes to generate the necessary voltage. Cheaper Gallium Nitride chips are the military's ticket to the next wave of advances in radar, electronic warfare, communications and surveillance technology. It's also fair to wonder if perhaps Gallium Nitride is the key to finally making directed energy weapons as operationally feasible as bullets, bombs and missiles.

Those with long memories may recall this has all happened once before. In the mid-1980s, DARPA seeded the development of a new manufacturing technique to lower the cost of producing Gallium Arsenide semiconductors to replace silicon. The arrival of this material made it possible to pack a transmitter powerful enough to make cellular phones possible in the first place.

With the roar of F-22s circling in the skies over Langley Air Force Base, the Air Combat Command celebrated the arrival of the first combat-ready A-10 that -- four years and $500 million later -- can drop a smart bomb.

While the precision weapon revolution swept over the rest of the US fighter fleet from the early 1990s, it took repeated intervention and powerful clout to digitize the A-10C Warthog cockpit, giving the pilot the tools to send a 500 to 2,000lb bomb to a precise GPS-based coordinate.

Despite the warm feelings among the A-10 fliers and maintainters gathered inside the hangar, it was clear something very important was still missing. This missing 'something' perhaps provoked General Ronald Keys, chief of the Air Combat Command and a former Warthog pilot, to utter what may sadly become one of the most unfortunately memorable quotes in the A-10's storied history.

"This is not the 'Super Hog' that we envisioned, but this is a 'better-than-average Hog," Keys said.

Sigh.

The concept of the Super Hog died in 2005 with the demise of an engine upgrade program. The A-10's TF34 engines are exceptionally reliable, but underpowered. Pilots in the heat of Iraq and the altitude of Afghanistan complain that they can take off with either a full load of fuel or a full load of weapons, but not both. When carrying a full load of bombs, the A-10s takeoff and immediately hit a tanker (if one is available).

The A-10C's smart bomb capability will make the aircraft much more attractive as a combat asset, but, alas, is still half of a Super Hog.

My vote for best professional organization in the defense/aerospace industry: the Society of Experimental Test Pilots.

And it's not just because they can get Neil Armstrong (Neil Armstrong!!!) to come to their annual symposium in Disneyland next month and brief attendees like me on the lunar vehicle test program (although, honestly, how do you top THAT?).

It's also because it's the only event on the aerospace convention calendar where virtually all the briefers make news, at least for a rumpled, ink-stained, trade wag like me.

Consider this abstract on a panel of speakers talking about the Small Diameter Bomb program:

"Unfortunately, the transition to the F-22 from F-15E is not as straightforward as it may appear. Many testing challenges, some of which have yet to be overcome, have arisen in the physical integration, instrumentation (specifically in loads measurements), range availability/clearance, and limited lifetimes of both the flight termination system (FTS) battery and weapon battery"

Remember, Small Diameter Bomb is the weapon that justifies the F-22 as a multi-role fighter.

I know this is primarily a defense industry blog, but I can't help it: this 787 vs A380 race is going to be a hoot, folks.

Yesterday, Singapore Airlines confirmed finally that it will operate the first flight of the A380 superjumbo on October 25.

The 787 first flight was supposed to be August, then September, and now will very likely be mid- tto late-October.

The question: can Boeing resolve it's issues with 787 production and beat Airbus into the sky before the A380's entry into service date? My money is on Boeing.

"Start your turbofans" (Source: Singapore Airlines)

P.S.: Singapore Airlines also announced offering a new suites section that is a "class beyond first".

This contest is inspired by a similar question posed to Richard Aboulafia on Flightblogger.

The challenge: name the top 5 military aviation headlines of 2017.

If you'd rather not post your name, feel free to email me with your contributions at stephen.trimble@flightglobal.com.

To get the ball rolling, here's my Top 5:

1. Airbus named Alabama's largest employer
2. Lockheed Martin, Sikorsky file 14th GAO protest on CSAR-X contract award to Boeing
3. Sixth-generation fighter out-duelled by unmanned drone assembled by Radio Shack
4. Boeing warns: C-17 production line will close without new order
5. US defense spending continues five-year decline;

Judging my “Acronyms That Will Never Be (ATWNB)” contest is hard.

I feel a little like the source selection board for the KC-X tanker contract: I know any pick I make is sure to be challenged and, perhaps, over-turned on appeal. (At least John McCain isn't breathing down my neck – yet.)

So I’m going to do what may very well happen in the tanker competition anyway, and name everyone who participated a winner! That’s right: everybody who sent an acronym gets an F-22 cutaway poster! Yes, I’m like the Oprah of defense industry bloggers.

(Participants, please email with your mailing addresses, and you will receive your well-deserved prize in the mail.)

Here are your winners:

CRASH -- Chinook Rear-Hemisphere Attack Sensor Halo (CRASH)
PUKED -- Predator Unintentional Kinetic Event Detector (PUKED)
RIPOFF -- Raptor Incident Prevention Override Failsafe Function (RIPOFF)
ASSHAT -- Apache (or Aviation) System Simulation High Altitude Trainer (ASSHAT)
JAC ASS -- Joint Air Controller Accident Survivability Simulation (JAC ASS)
ASS-M -- Air to Surface Standoff Missile (ASS-M) (JASSM without the redundant “Joint”)
VIAGRA -- Vertically-Initiated Aircraft for Ground Reconnaissance and Attack (VIAGRA)
PENIS -- Pilotage Environmental Navigation Instrumentation System (PENIS)
OPERATION QUAGMIRE -- Operation Quest to Unite All Good Meaning Iraqi Residents Enthusiastically
MONGOLOID -- Main Outer Navigationally Guided Operational Laser Onboard Identification friend -or- foe Designator (MONGOLOID)
BURP -- BOMB UNIT RECYCLING PROGRAM
CRAP -- COUNTER-RADIATION AIRCRAFT PROTECTION
BULLSHIT -- Bomb Unit for Low-Level Surface HIT
PISS-OFF -- Penetrating Intelligence Sub-System for Stand-OFF
COWDUNG -- Common Operational Warning Display Unit - New Generation
BUDWEIS-ER -- Buried Underground Digital Warfare-Enabled Integrated System - Extended Range

Spotted on the web this morning: a little article about a technology trend that should make every platform-dependent defense company very nervous.

Read it here.

I owe Boeing an apology: I can think of no reason to write a story about the CH-47F Chinook.

This, despite the fact that Boeing flew me and several others on the corporate jet to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, to witness a ceremony today recognizing the CH-47F's first unit equipped. While no quid pro quo is stated, I somehow feel bad, like I'm letting them down.

Quite simply, the CH-47F is a boringly successful program. There hasn't been a major cost overrun since 2002, and that was mostly due to an internal Boeing restructuring that shifted overhead costs from space programs onto all the other divisions. Moreover, the new model doesn't add mission or payload capability so much as make the Chinook much better and safer at what it already does. Boooorrrrriiiinnnnggggg.

Instead, I wanted to know about the juicy stuff. The CH-47F has just been fielded, but, may I ask, what's going to happen with the long-rumored growth version of the Chinook? Is there really enough growth margin in this 49-year-old aircraft program to make it worth it?

I also wanted to know the juicy updates about the CSAR-X program. To wit: what's Boeing going to do if Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky decide to drag the contract dispute through the courts AND the congressional appropriations process? What is Boeing's strategy to win after it already won? Has the company contacted, ahem, Al Gore's old campaign team for lessons learned?

I got some of the answers I was looking for, which you can read about in next week's magazine. But I've still got nothing new and interesting to write about the good old CH-47F. Again, my apologies.

"What the 'F'?"(Source: Boeing)

I have seen video of the first V-22 combat deployment, but it isn't to Iraq. It's here.

I admit: there's something about mysterious overcharging admissions by defense contractors that awake my inner-conspiracy theorist.

Of course, it's entirely plausible that Lockheed Martin's admission yesterday -- about mistakenly overbilling the US government by $265 million on Joint Strike Fighter development -- is one of those innocent goofs -- the accountant's equivalent of a Bill Buckner-esque "where'd the ball go?" moment.

But that's no fun, is it? I mean, what's the point of being a trade press blogger if you can't use some imagination, especially when the contractor in question is being a bit too skimpy with the details of what caused this little problem.

So, in the absence of facts, here's my Top 10 guesses for where all the money went.

10. Charitable donation to Indian Air Force chief
9. Dolce & Gabbana-designed cockpit interior option for Italian customers
8. $265 million marketing fund to fight $400 million defense appropriation for JSF alternate engine
7. Upgrading Tom Burbage from first class on American Airlines to his own private A380 VIP jet
6. A new underground disco for classified interplanetary employees at Groom Lake (cheers Peter La Franchi)
5. Purchase order for building that houses Norway's Parliament, which will be immediately locked and shuttered upon sale
4. Funding to graphics design firm for making eight new power point slides for JSF quarterly update meeting
3. Skunk Works' newest toy: unmanned/stealthy/morphing/VTOL/tube-launched 500-ton cargo airship
2. F/A-18-themed interior decor for new outhouse structure at Senator Ted Stevens' vacation home
1. "Free Veuve Cliquot Champagne Fridays" at Lockheed's employee cafeteria in Fort Worth

Trying something new on the blog today: a contest!

The prize is one of Flight's famous cutaway posters of the Lockheed Martin F-22.

l'll give everybody a week. The challenge: come up with a military aircraft acronym that makes sense, but could never actually exist. I'll give you two examples.

1) Ever heard of the Hornet Industry Team (HIT), which makes the F/A-18? The acronym that will never exist: the Super Hornet Industry Team (er, get it?).

2) Have you also heard of the Hornet Autonomous Real-time Targeting (HART) system, also an F/A-18-based project? The acronym that will never exist: the Falcon Autonomous Real-time Targeting system, with thanks to The Woracle for coming up with that one.

The prize winner will be announced next Thursday at 2 pm. The prize can be mailed or delivered in person, if you're local to the Washington DC area. If you prefer to make anonymous suggestions, please email me at stephen.trimble@flightglobal.com.

Let the contest begin!

[UPDATE: The first (anonymous) submittals have arrived, and RIPOFF has taken the early lead! Here's the list:

Chinook Rear-Hemisphere Attack Sensor Halo (CRASH)

Predator Unintentional Kinetic Event Detector (PUKED)

Raptor Incident Prevention Override Failsafe Function (RIPOFF) (used by LMCO staffers to keep execs out of trouble with GAO)

Apache (or Aviation) System Simulation High Altitude Trainer (ASSHAT)

Joint Air Controller Accident Survivability Simulation (JAC ASS)

Keep them coming!]

Nothing says "class" like riding to Seattle on a Boeing Business Jet to cover a KC-767 rally (see photo below), with the movie "Talledega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby" on both widescreens.

Yet, the movie's paean to jingoistic-hick car racing culture meant more to me than mere slapstick; indeed, it was allegory, emulating the very soul of the twisted and tiresome six-year race by Boeing and Airbus to sell a new tanker to the US Air Force.

Hear me out.

You have the All-American driver Ricky Bobby, an unbeatable NASCAR champion. He is our stand-in for the KC-767.

There is his fellow driver and childhood friend Cal Naughton Jr. Cal faithfully manuevers his car to ensure that his buddy Ricky always wins. Cal, of course, plays the role of the US Congress.

And there is Jean Girard, the effiminate French driver who finally knocks the KC-76... er, Ricky, off his perch and sends him and his car into a lengthy rehabilitation period. You guessed it: Jean is the KC-30.

At this point, Ricky loses his car, his house and his best friend runs off with his wife. (Keep up: Darleen Druyun is the car, James Roche is the house and Congress -- in the form of John McCain -- is the scoundrel friend.)

So, finally, Ricky fights his way back onto the racing circuit and makes a final stand against Jean, the Camus-reading, macchiato-sipping Frenchie driver.

In a predictable twist, Cal (re-assuming the role of congressional stand-in) comes back to Ricky's side, and literally wipes out the rest of the competitive field to give his buddy Ricky a clean shot against Jean on the final lap, cheering him all the way.

But then there's another fateful twist. Neck-and-neck with a few hundred yards before the finish line, there is a massive collision. Both cars do sumersaults down the final stretch in a scene that evokes, to me, not a car crash but a contract protest upheld by the Government Accountability Office.

The two drivers -- sore, bruised, but uninjured -- climb out from their cars, eye each other and make a foot-race for the finish line.

I refuse to be a spoiler, but let's just say that it doesn't take a NASCAR bookie to correctly guess how this race is going to end.

While the Iranian Air Force is reportedly pursuing a deal with Russia for a huge amount of Sukhoi Su-30s, the Iranian Army -- yes, the army! -- is apparently fielding the Azarakhsh (Thunder) and the Saeghe (Lightning), with both being bizarrely modified versions of the Northrop F-5E.

While it's clear that not even the US Air Force could spin the Azarakhsh as a reason to justify buying more F-22s, the fact that Iran is desperately seeking to create a fighter aircraft industrial base should raise some eyebrows.

Here's the news on the Azarakhsh reported this morning by the Iranian News Agency:

Iran has successfully tested a new fighter plane named Azarakhsh (Thunder), said Ministry of Defense Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar Monday morning.

'Thunder' has been manufactured in cooperation with experts from the Army, Defense Ministry and HESA aircarft manufacturing industries in the central province of Isfahan, the minister told reporters on the sidelines of a ceremony held on the eve of 'Journalist Day' (August 8).

"The Azarakhsh fighter plan is now at the stage of industrial production and its mass production will start in the future," said the minister.

He added that the fighter's successful test would lead to plans for "manufacturing of the fifth generation of Iranian aircraft." Army and Defense Ministry experts are currently working on the second type of Azarakhsh fighters called Sa'qeh (Lightning) which would be also tested in the near future, Mohammad-Najjar added.

Let the record show that I am filing this blog item from 30,000 feet, flying from Washington-Dulles to Everett, Washington aboard Boeing's corporate Boeing Business Jet. For the plane-spotters, it's tail number N339BA. Yes, it's good to be an aviation journalist.

Lots of angst has been spilled this week on the pages of the trade and mainstream press over the sad fate of the Boeing X-45N. This navalized variant certainly suffered a blow by losing the US Navy's UCAS-D contract to its longtime rival -- the Northrop Grumman X-47B.

But don't fret. Multi-billion dollar military technology development programs never die. They just go black.

Besides, on August 2, Dyke Weatherington, DOD's unmanned systems guru, confirmed that the X-45 technology will surely not go to waste. He noted that the USAF still wants a more robust stand-in jammer aircraft than the Raytheon Miniature Air Launched Decoy-Jammer.

Sure enough, the air force's budget justification documents this year include a "recoverable unmanned stand-in" platform as a "potential" component of a future airborne electronic attack architecture, which, I may add, is a very slick way to surreptiously resurrect the X-45C program that the air force cancelled nearly two years ago. Bravo!

"I like to call it a 'stand-on' jammer" (Source: Boeing)

Remember this solicitation in about five years, when the technology it advertises becomes a key part of a new missile that seeks to be all things to all targets. Think AMRAAM, HARM and boost-phase interceptor, all in one. And remember you saw it here first.

A new RAND Project Air Force report offers a revealing glimpse into the blue-suiter's perspective on the Joint Cargo Aircraft program. This blog has long been skeptical that the USAF will actually buy the JCA, which, pending a protest decision, is the L-3 Communications/Alenia C-27J Spartan. Based on RAND's report, that skepticism appears deserved. Here's an excerpt:

The first aircraft, the C-27J, is an improved and up-powered version of the C-27A. The second contender for the JCA role is the CASA 295. Each of these aircraft is capable of operating from runways that are somewhat shorter, narrower and rougher than those normally employed by the much larger C-130. However, neither aircraft was designed to provide [short takeoff and landing for rough fields] capabilities like those emphasized in the assault airlifters of the 1950s and 1960s. Thus, building several squadrons of JCA's could improve DOD"s ability to support dispersed counterinsurgency operations by increasing the number of 'tails' available to the presently overstressed theater airlift fleet at a relatively modest cost. However, acquiring such aircraft will leave the issue of developing assault airlift capabilities unresolved."

Hmmm, wasn't JCA's whole point to deliver an aircraft with STOL-RF capability?

Even though some dumb jerk recently predicted a Boeing victory, the US Navy has selected the Northrop Grumman X-47B for the $635 million prize of the UCAS-D contract. Gee, I bet that guy feels silly now.

Pardon me a moment to wipe some egg off my keyboard.

That's better. Anyway, the end result is a good indicator that Northrop's long-term relationship with the US Navy on the unmanned combat air systems program in all its many guises simply overwhelmed Boeing's chances. Boeing's X-45B was the air force's baby, and now appears to be an orphan.

The challenge now for Northrop is to keep the program sold both to the navy and the Congress. But that can wait until tomorrow. Today is for Northrop's victory lap, and for my turn to eat crow.

"Niiiiice cockpit" Source: DARPA

Former special operations and joint staff officer Ed "Otto" Pernotto has just launched a blog with special ambitions.

Most immediately, he wants to recruit other bloggers to help him persuade the US Air Force to buy a turboprop (egad!) fighter to support the counter-insurgency mission. His long-term goal is even more interesting, and that is to harness the blogosphere as sort of an on-call RAND consultancy for the US military on any topic (but more on that later).

Pernotto right now wants your feedback before he submits an unsolicited proposal to the air force, which calls for the immediate purchase and deployment of Hawker Beechcraft AT-6 Texan IIs. He plans to take the feedback, make necessary changes and then formally submit the proposal to the air force.

The idea is intriguing on a number of levels, and not least that Pernotto obviously considers the blogosphere a more valuable resource than a conference room of RAND consultants. I'll post my own obersvations about the specifics of Pernotto's proposal later this week, but, please, go take a look at what he has to say.

"Uncle Otto"

Today, it's official: the Lockheed Martin F-22 production line will finally expire in June 2012, which, of course, means the company and its congressional allies have exactly four years and 11 months to contrive a reason to keep the program alive.

Anyone familiar with the ongoing saga of the Boeing C-17 production line knows that a major weapon system in hot production is like a cockroach in a mushroom cloud. It survives.

Time will only tell when the F-22 finally meets its fifth-generation fate. With the US Air Force still hoping to essentially double the orderbook to at least 380 and certain key allies asking for the Raptor's keys, there's still plenty of reason to believe that where there's a will, there's a ... well, you know. But with budget pressures and the small matter of the need to reconstruct the army and the marine corps in this pre-post-Iraq period, finding extra cash will be tricky.

"Er, remember Tiananmen?" Source: USAF