May 2008 Archives

Twenty-five years ago, the US Air Force wanted to design a new aircraft called the "advanced tactical fighter". No fewer than seven companies -- Boeing, General Dynamics, Grumman, Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, Northrop and Rockwell -- answered the USAF's initial call for bids with serious proposals. (Rockwell's rejected concept for what became the F-22 is pictured at right.)

It is a measure of the US aerospace industry's competitive decline since 1983 that such a response today could only come from the makers of small and very small unmanned aircraft systems.

I was reminded of this reality this week while researching an upcoming feature story for Flight International on the competitive field for the small tactical UAS (STUAS)/Tier II contract, a joint requirement for the US Navy, US Marine Corps and US Air Force.

For the first time that I could remember, it took me several days to track down and talk to each of the potential competitors for a DOD aerospace contract!

The ducted turbofan jet engine, the world's most efficient machine, is now 43 years old. General Electric introduced the TF39 in 1965 to power the mammoth Lockheed C-5A. This now ubiquitous source of power for aircraft would seem to be a "mature" (read: dead) technology, closed to new opportunities for innovation.

Whether the goal is increasing speed or maximizing fuel efficiency, the focus for innovation has shifted to alternate -- and unproven -- forms of propulsion, such as pulse-detonated engines, supersonic combustion ramjets (scramjets) and even the ungainly-looking unducted fan.

But the turbofan's true believers have not all departed. Within the past two years, members of the Air Force Research Laboratory and industry have proved the case that the four-decade-old turbofan remains ripe for new innovation.

Hence, Rolls-Royce and GE have separate contracts to demonstrate a radically more efficient turbofan design called the highly efficient embedded turbine engine (HEETE). The AFRL's goal is to develop the next engine to power transports and spy aircraft, but a vast commercial market also awaits.

Last week, I spoke with representatives from Rolls and GE about their progress on HEETE so far, and about the challenges of extracting a 25% improvement in efficiency from the "mature" turbofan. Continue reading to view my article appearing in this week's Flight International.

At last week's Boeing shareholders meeting gathering for Wall Street analysts, Morgan Stanley aerospace guru Heidi Wood popped an unexpected question to Integrated Defense Systems president Jim Albaugh.

Why, Wood queried, is Boeing still the only US military helicopter manufacturer lacking a product to offer the rapidly growing commercial market for vertical lift?

I've noticed over the years that Wood likes to ask the put-you-on-the-spot question. Albaugh responded like any other industry executive in this situation - by evading a direct reply.

Neither the AH-64 Apache nor the CH-47 Chinook make a particularly logical commercial product, he replied, adding: "I don't think any of you want us to go out there and do a fixed price development contract for a commercial product."

But Wood didn't let him off the hook so easily. Instead, she boxed him into a rhetorical corner with her follow-up, finally yielding a more intriguing reply from Boeing's defense boss.

An anonymous YouTuber posted this video three days ago. It has to be less than a week old.

I can't tell you what the future holds for the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN). It's history has been surprisingly controversial inside the US Department of Defense. It is championed by one sector of the US Air Force (ie, the AFC2ISR Center) but seemingly opposed by other sectors in the acquisition establishment.

I've written about the program intermittently since it played a starring role at the 2006 Joint Expeditionary Forces Experiment (JEFX), but lost track of it about a year ago. At the time, Northrop planned to transition the BACN payload from the NASA WB-57 testbed to a Gulfstream G550.

Twelve months later, BACN has re-appeared in the news, thanks to another starring turn at the 2008 JEFX event. But somehow the airframe was switched from the G550 to the Bombardier Global Express XRS.

I wrote about Bombardier's coup for this week's issue of Flight International. It's still unclear precisely how the events unfolded, but you can be sure this won't be the last time we hear about the Global Express as a candidate for the US military. 

Two key supply and demand trends in aerospace manufacturing today: global outsourcing  of the manufacturing supply chain and surging demand for specialty metals, such as titanium and nickel.

Two weeks ago, I was offered an invitation to visit a major production site for specialty alloys in Monroe, North Carolina. My host was Allegheny Technologies Inc. (ATI), a company that stands at a unique nexus of both the supply-side outsourcing and demand-side metals issues.

How important is the specialty metals business to the aerospace industry? Let's put it this way: If you had invested $1 in ATI in 2002, it be worth more than $15 today. And the good times are not over. Titanium demand is projected to grow by more than 500% within the next 20 years.

I profiled ATI's unique growth strategy, which categorically rejects the globalized supply chain fetish, in this week's issue of Flight International. 

Who is the George Costanza of the US defense industry?

Many suggestions -- some quite elaborate -- have poured in to answer the question I posed on this blog last week, but Kevin is the first to name the correct one.

He simply writes: "I vote for Bell Helicopter."

Yes, that is correct.

Now, can anybody explain why Bell most exemplifies the George Costanza lifestory (see below)?

Quote from the "Opposite George" episode:

George Costanza: "It became very clear to me sitting out there today that every decision I've made in my entire life has been wrong. My life is the complete opposite of everything I want it to be. Every instinct I have, in every aspect of life, be it something to wear, something to eat - it's all been wrong."

As we all know, the US Navy did not select the Mariner unmanned aircraft system - offered by Lockheed Martin and General Atomics-Aeronautical Systems (GA-ASI) - for the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) contract.

Indeed, Lockheed has protested the USN's decision to select the Northrop Grumman RQ-4N Global Hawk. That process is ongoing.

Meanwhile, I was offered an opportunity yesterday to interview Tom Cassidy, president and CEO of GA-ASI, the maker-of-all-things-Predator.

Cassidy, a former navy fighter pilot, could not speak about his partner's protest claim on BAMS, but he did explain why the idea of a marinized Predator B is still very much alive - and perhaps still destined for a USN contract eventually.

Last Friday, myself and a few other reporters sat with Ralph Crosby on a round-trip flight to Columbus, Mississippi, and back.

Crosby, CEO of EADS North America, wanted to show off his company's scantly-covered factory where Eurocopter EC-145s will be assembled as UH-72s for the US Army.

My purpose was related, but different. I wanted to know what Crosby does next after winning the both the UH-72 order and a share of the KC-X contract. Crosby was nice enough to oblige. Read the story on Flightglobal.com, or continue reading here.

Either one of these should be the US Air Force's new theme song:

You've submitted four nominees for the George Costanza of the defense industry: Sikorsky, General Electric, Unisys and SAIC.

These aren't even close. Sikorsky can claim the UH-60 and GE can boast the GE90. Those achievements alone immediately disqualify these two from Costanza status. SAIC and Unisys have never screwed up badly and publicly enough to make the cut either.

The answer is obvious if you really think about it. Which defense contractor has massive delays, cost overruns and technical shortfalls on every major platform development program it has touched -- with only one minor exception -- since the mid-1950s, yet still exists as a multi-billion dollar business?

There's only one.

NASA will finally be able to play with the two RQ-4s that the agency received back in November. Don't expect these two airframes to be the last RQ-4s transferred to a civil government customer.

Also, pay attention to the last sentence of the second paragraph of the NASA press release excerpted below: "... expanded markets, missions and airborne capabilities"? My guesses: airborne early warning, earth observation, climate change monitoring, etc, etc.

NASA / NORTHROP AGREEMENT OPENS DOOR TO SCIENCE INVESTIGATIONS

NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center and the Northrop Grumman Corporation have reached an agreement that will enable NASA's Science Mission Directorate to conduct Earth science research with the Northrop Grumman-developed RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned aircraft system.

 

Under a Space Act Agreement signed April 30, NASA and Northrop Grumman will bring to flight in 2009 two pre-production Global Hawk aircraft that were recently transferred to NASA. Northrop Grumman will share in their use to conduct its own flight demonstrations for expanded markets, missions and airborne capabilities, including integration of unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace.

 

The two Global Hawk aircraft, among the first seven built during the original Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency sponsored Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration program, were transferred to NASA Dryden from the U.S. Air Force in September 2007. NASA acquired the two aircraft for research activities supporting its Airborne Science Program."

Nominations so far on AirSpace discussion forum:

• 'Boeing KC-767A'
• 'Flirty Thirty'
• 'Mobile home' [...re the Alabama assembly line]
• 'Fortress Europe'
• 'Fruit of the boom'
• 'Just desserts'

"It became very clear to me sitting out there today that every decision I've made in my entire life has been wrong. My life is the complete opposite of everything I want it to be. Every instinct I have, in every aspect of life, be it something to wear, something to eat - it's all been wrong."

The above quote, of course, comes from George Costanza, the great id-philosopher of Seinfeld fame.

My goal today is to associate that classic quote of pop culture with the US defense industry.

To wit, which US defense contractor best epitomizes George's classic case of self-actualization?

Make no mistake: this is not by any means an easy achievement. To pass the "Costanza life test", a defense contractor must screw up almost as if its business strategy depended upon its errors rather than its successes.

After the year Boeing's had, filled with a string of competitive near-misses, the KC-X tanker bid and the 787 delay, some might nominate the Chicago-based aerospace giant.

But I disagree.

Sure, Boeing's had a bad year.

But 12 months of bad luck and bad behaviour does not a Costanza life profile make.

No, it takes years and years of accumulated failure competitively, contractually and strategically to be the Costanza of the defense industry.

Yes, I have a particular company in mind. Can anybody guess?

A few people have caught the significance of my blog last week about the UAE's decision to develop Raytheon's laser-guided rocket.

It's not the first time that the UAE has paid to a US defence contractor develop a weapon system that the US military has turned its back on. A far more significant example is the Lockheed Martin F-16 Block 60, which exists because of a large check signed by the UAE air force.

Airpower added his comment on the deal over the weekend. He wrote:

An interesting development for sure.

The UAE is pushing very strongly to build up its aerospace and defence industry (from scratch). This is the second overly military programme I can think of, following on from all those funky UAVs. So already the UAE shows an astute grasp of what's important – UAS technology and precision weapons – and is moving in a measured and sensible way to get involved.

I suspect the chances that this project will return to the US as a finished product are less likely. I think the UAE will consider this to be its own thing, bought and paid for. I think all that stuff about 'international customers' is window dressing.

If Raytheon has struck a deal for the UAE to develop a product that it can then sell on (to the US), how would the US authorities deal with the issue of the royalties due? The UAE knows how to play that game – keep an eye on the transfer of Block 60 tech to the F-16IN bid... it won't come for free.

Of course, given the sensible and reasoned debate there's been over the KC-X programme I'm sure the idea of buying bombs from Ay-rabs would not be a problem.

More than anything this seems be a decision by Raytheon that APKWS is going nowhere, that Raytheon doesn't have much of a chance anyway and that it might as well go and find a customer with money and enthusiasm somewhere else.

It's official: the advanced precision kill weapon system (APKWS) has become my favorite weapons program.

I'm an aerospace journalist, not an operator. That means I like weapon systems that keep me in business.

And APKWS has it all: contract cancellations, contractor drama, a ridiculous acronym and, now, a plot twist worthy of David Mamet.

Here's a brief history of this wonderfully illustrious attempt to simply add a $5,000 guidance system to a 2.75-inch Hydra rocket worth about $200.

I'll start with the first time that the US Defense Dept. canceled the contract. It was in early 2005. General Dynamics was the APKWS prime contractor and BAE Systems was the sub. There were a couple bad flight tests and the army decided to pull the plug.

Six months later, the program was reborn; this time as APKWS II. There were three bidders. One candidate was BAE, which had simply switched roles with General Dynamics as the prime. Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, sniffing an opportunity to steal a plum contract from a vulnerable rival, also submitted bids.

By mid-2006, the army completed the source selection evaluation and awarded the contract to ... (drum roll) BAE! Recompeting the contract only to award it to the original winner prompted some grumbling in industry circles. Some cynics questioned whether the army could have spared itself some trouble by showing more patience the first time around.

Later that year, however, the whole program was mooted by Congress, which axed the funding. Poof. Just like that, it was gone ... again. (Meanwhile, BAE would continue hoping for the US Marine Corps to rescue the program.)

But yesterday's news was the real shocker: Raytheon announced that the United Arab Emirates will fund the development of a semi-active laser to install on a 2.75-inch Hydra rocket.

This is the same semi-active laser that Raytheon originally developed for APKWS II. (Yes, I checked.)

Now, the UAE will pay for its development, allowing the US Army and US Marine Corps the opportunity to buy it off the shelf.

What could go wrong?

Remember the Hawaii Air National Guard F-15 that crashed about 60 miles off the coast of Oahu on 2 February?

The Associated Press this morning reports on the cause.

An Accident Investigation Board convened by Pacific Air Forces said both rudders on the plane, which are used to control the jet's direction, failed.
That's most likely due to the failure of a device called the Aileron-Rudder Interconnect, which controls whether the plane goes up or down and right or left, Pacific Air Forces said in a news release.
Since investigators were unable to recover the plane, they based their findings on interviews with the pilot and flight data automatically transmitted to Oahu.
The report found no connection between the Oahu crash and that of a Missouri Air National Guard F-15C that broke apart during a training flight in November.

The Honolulu Advertiser also printed a good story.

Dallas Morning News films F-35 production line

Northrop Grumman video on RQ-4N BAMS (via The Woracle)

Just for laughs ... Airbus A380 vs Cop Car

Finally ... the best executive retirement send-off ever

I just received this statement via email from Lockheed Martin:

“Lockheed Martin is committed to proposing and delivering best value solutions for our customers’ mission requirements. Lockheed Martin protests contract awards infrequently, and only when we believe that the benefits of our offerings were not fully considered during the evaluation process. With regard to the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance competition, information provided to us during our debrief indicated that we offered a technically compliant and awardable solution at significantly lower cost, leading us to request a Government Accountability Office review.”

Quote from the 2001 film, the Bridget Jones Diary:

It is a truth universally acknowledged that when one part of your life starts going okay, another falls spectacularly to pieces.

Bridget Jones and Lockheed Martin Missiles & Fire Control can relate.

Today, LMM&FC is proud to announce that the AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Missile (JASSM) is back on track after an 11-month hiatus while the contractor fixed a chronic reliability problem. (I will add web link shortly.)

That alone should make this a good day in Lockheed's book.

But, on the same day, the German press is reporting that another LMM&FC program is falling apart.

From the BBC Monitoring service:

In a confidential letter to the members of the Budget Committee Ruediger Wolf, Undersecretary for Armament, warned that the controversial project costing billions might possibly have to be ended. Under the clumsy name of Medium Extended Air Defence System (MEADS) Germans, Italians, and Americans wanted to develop a weapon system which was supposed to shoot down not only fighter aircraft, helicopters, and unmanned aerial vehicles but also anti-ballistic missiles with a range of up to 1,000 kilometres.

"Management deficits" among the manufacturers and "a development funding that was clearly underestimated technologically as well as with regard to cost," writes Armament Undersecretary Wolf, have now led "to the danger of considerable delays and additional costs," particularly for the radar equipment. However, the ministry did not find out about it until 24 April.

The partners now have "serious concerns" because of the "not acceptable situation." Should the companies not adhere to the agreements on "costs, performance, time," threatened Wolf in unwieldy bureaucratic German, they would "be faced with consideration of an end to the programme as a conceivable option."

In the film, Bridget Jones finally gets the guy and her parents reconcile. LMM&FC has already got its JASSM contract. Let's see if the company can also get Germany and Italy to reconcile.

Internal auditors for the US Department of Defense could not conclude that UK-based BAE Systems properly shielded information and technology secrets about the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).
The uncertainty of the DOD inspector general’s (IG) findings was not the result of any specific lapse by BAE’s US-based subsidiary.
Rather, the IG audit faulted an inadequate process used by DOD’s investigative agency – the Defense Security Service (DSS).
The IG audit found, for example, that BAE’s internal reports identified more security weaknesses than DSS’s own investigators found in a series of annual reviews.
Making matters worse, the DSS never checked the contractor’s internal security reports, so the investigators were unaware of the additional potential security weaknesses.
BAE Systems released a statement on 30 April, saying the IG audit “explicitly found no instances of unauthorized access to classified or export control information on the JSF program. We strongly disagree with the IG's suggestion that nonetheless, such information may have been compromised in some unidentified way by unauthorized access at BAE Systems.”
The internal IG audit, dated 6 March, was obtained by the Project on Government Oversight.
The IG audit team first reviewed and cleared seven requests by the F-35 programme’s two major suppliers – BAE and Northrop Grumman -- for export control licenses. The IG then widened the investigation to include security procedures at BAE’s US facilities.
BAE is the largest, foreign-owned contractor for DOD.

I was on a junket the past couple of days organized by Allegheny Technologies Inc.

I learned a lot about titanium sponges, North Carolina barbecue and the potentially lethal effects of tungsten inside ball-point pens (which sounds slightly more interesting than it actually is).

But here's what I learned yesterday about the relationship between high-performance metals, the aerospace industry and geo-politics.

The drive to make jet engines more efficient requires engine cores to operate at increasingly higher temperatures. That means engine manufacturers must increasingly rely on nickel-based alloys, which is about the only metal that's both strong enough and practical enough for this purpose.

The catch is that most raw materials of nickel are mined from places like Russia or Kazakhstan. The only nickel available for manufacturing in the United States comes from scrap yards. ATI's executives say they also have nickel sources in Canada and Australia, but acknowledge that the vast majority comes from our friends in the former Soviet Union.

It makes me wonder: What happens to the jet engine industry if one of the sources for this metal decides to shut down the supply?

ATI likes to refer to itself as a "geo-politically secure source" for specialty metals, but they are really just talking about titanium, which can be extracted in abundance from within the USA. Nickel is not so easy to find, despite its increasing significance in jet engines.