Confusion about the L-3/Alenia C-27J's price tag relative to the C-130J's sparked one of history's most memorable lines from a Congressional hearing earlier this year on military acquisition. Here's that famous exchange between Rep Neil Abercrombie and USAF acquisition head Sue Payton:

"REP. ABERCROMBIE: Ms. Payton, you are right on the edge of getting into the Blues Brothers.

MS. PAYTON: Sorry sir, I don't mean to be there. I --

REP. ABERCROMBIE: That's when -- when Jake says, Bill, but you lied to us about the band. They lied to me when I was in prison about the band. You haven't kept the band together. He goes, I never lied to you. I bullshitted you a little bit, but I never lied to you."

Six months later, Abercrombie's hunch proved right on the mark. The defense appropriations conference report approved by the House last week explains that the twin-engined C-27J costs much less than a four-engined C-130J after all. Here's the language:

"The report (H. Rept. 110-652) accompanying the House bill noted that, at the time of the report, the Air Force was reporting a unit cost for JCA of $60.7 million, and was reporting a unit cost for C-130J aircraft of $56.7 million.

After further discussion with the Air Force acquisition officials and clarification of terminology, we believe that a fairer, apples-to-apples comparison of such costs would raise the comparable average procurement unit cost for a C-130J to $84.2 million, in terms of fiscal year 2007 dollars."

The Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) appears to have overcome both budget and design scares within the past few weeks. A proposed Congressional funding cut for the Northrop Grumman-led programme was reversed in the final version of the budget approved by lawmakers last week, the company says. Also, a potentially fatal design flaw in the second stage rocket motor was fixed and validated during a ground test last Thursday.

Only four more ground tests remain before the first booster launch scheduled next summer. A canister-ejection test is also scheduled in 2011, but Northrop says this could be accelerated. But no KEI missile will be tested as an interceptor until at least 2014.

There's at least two sides to every story.

The RAND report on air dominance posted here last week raises fundamental questions about the US Air Force's vision for air dominance based on stealth, beyond visual range combat and forward basing.

Richard Hallion, former US Air Force official historian, has recently presented the "other side" of the air dominance story, a 53-slide briefing that explains the reasoning behind the USAF's approach. I present it here to help inform and balance the discussion.

Reading both presentations -- and the comments prompted by the RAND report -- it's very clear that there are two rational -- but distinct -- theories about the future of airpower and how to achieve it. Both sides can't be right.

Sadly (or, perhaps, very fortunately) there is almost no useful empirical data to conclusively prove either point, since there has not been a decisive air war between the world's most sophisticated air force since the early 1970s. (I'm sure this is a debatable point, and I'm interested to know other views.)

Approved US defense spending bills this week move the Boeing F/A-18E/F one step closer to a multi-year procurement deal that could add two years to the life of the program -- and potentially complicate the timing of the F-35C carrier-based variant.

Congress encouraged the US Navy to budget for a third multi-year procurement deal in fiscal 2010 to address an (optimistically) projected fighter shortfall of "approximately 69 aircraft".

Boeing and the Navy are already in talks about pricing for a multi-year deal for at least 150 aircraft. That would include 90 fighters already planned for FY2010 and FY2011, plus at least 60 more. A five-year deal would extend annual orders through FY2014, with the last deliveries arriving in the fleet by FY2016.

It's not yet clear if extending F/A-18E/F production could complicate matters for the F-35C, which is scheduled to enter full-rate production in FY2015. Overlapping, full-rate fighter orders by one service are rare, but stranger things have happened.

This blog has obtained the RAND briefing described in so many reports this week. You can download it here by scrolling on the image below (thank you, Apture).

After a long review, I can understand why the heads of the program were mystified at how this briefing was used as the basis to attack the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35 is mentioned only in passing [CORRECTING:] is described as "double-inferior" to Russian fighters on one back-up slide (#80), and but RAND's analysts make no attempt to deconstruct the aerodynamic performance of any of the aircraft involved in the wargame.

At the same time, the briefing does not back up this remark by Maj Gen Charles Davis : "The exercise involved basing capacity around the Pacific Rim. It was a logistics and deployablility exercise, not a battle."

That's not quite fair either. RAND's analysis shows that a Taiwan Straits air war in 2020 exposes alarming concerns about the limits of US reliance on stealth, forward basing and beyond visual range combat. (Spoiler alert: the Chinese win.)

The analysts assume Kadena is wiped out by short-range ballistic missiles within the first minutes of the conflict. [ed: Bummer. I'm Kadena HS alum, class of '93.] That leaves Andersen, in Guam, to launch a counter-attack.

Operating from Andersen, RAND says that only six F-22s carrying a maximum of 48 air to air missiles can remain on station above Taiwan at any one time.

Chinese respond by launching three air regiments -- 72 SU-27s carrying 912 air to air missiles -- across the straits. 

For the purposes of discussion, RAND assumes the most optimistic outcome: Every missile fired by the F-22s find their mark, and none of the Chinese missiles shoots down an F-22.

Still, enough SU-27s escape the F-22 screen to attack and shoot down the F-22's orbiting tankers. The F-22s now lack missiles and fuel, and have no hope of landing at a friendly base.

The Chinese win.

The F-35s are mentioned only one slide and as an excursion. I'd be interested to read your opinions,  but their involvement doesn't appear to change the odds of success. More US aircraft are simply lost.

Australian press reports about the Lockheed Martin F-35 getting "clubbed like a baby seal" in a classified analysis of a wargame by the RAND Corp. has clearly got the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program worried. First, the F-35's leadership duo -- Maj Gen Charles Davis and Lockheed executive Tom Burbage -- called an impromptu press conference last week to publicly question the motives of the program's critics. Now, RAND itself has jumped into the fray. Here's RAND's statement issued earlier today:

"Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved.  Those reports are not accurate.  RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat.  Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft."

Airbus Military started the day blaming the latest A400M first flight delay upon the "unavailability of the propulsion system", apparently much to the dislike of the propulsion system supplier.

Safran, a key member of the European consortium providing the TP400-D6 turboprop, issued its own press release saying that the engines are ready.

And, Safran adds, the only thing that isn't ready is the control software for the full authority digital engine control [FADEC], and that is "responsibility of Airbus Military".

Hey, with friends like these ...

Steve Finger reiterated P&W's position that its geared turbofan technology is superior to open rotor for next-generation airliners. Flight trials on Airbus A340 for GTF demonstrator begin next week in France.

In case you missed it, pop singer Clay Aiken has confirmed he's not straight. This would have ranked as the biggest non-surprise news story of the week until this morning, when Airbus confirmed that first flight of the A400M will be "postponed". Airbus blamed the delay on the continuing non-availability of the TP400 turboprop engine. Like previous schedule slips, this indefinite postponement for the A400M likely means more delivery delays for the airlifter's launch customers, but EADS has not released he new schedule. Read the Airbus announcement here.

Here's how the Boeing C-17 will somehow continue to survive next year despite no US Air Force funding request and no funds provided by Congress's appropriators. Yesterday, a congressional conference committee authorized the USAF to buy six C-17s for $2.1 billion in 2009. That helps provide the legal cover for inserting funds to buy up to 15 C-17s in the next wartime supplemental spending bill. That's exactly how the process worked last year, except for one small detail. Last year, the same committee authorized funds for eight C-17s, not six. Anybody think that's significant?

See also:

• Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy and the C-5A's last stand

Pictured below is Raytheon/Boeing team's baby for winning the Joint Air to Ground Missile (JAGM) contract.

Both the Raytheon/Boeing team and Lockheed Martin are fighting to win the contract, but it promises to be a tough challenge no matter who wins.

The Army and Navy not only want a weapon that can replace the AGM-114 HELLFIRE. They also want to add a modular warhead to penetrate armored targets or buildings, a tri-mode seeker for all-weather performance and double the range to 16km. And, oh yeah, it must be able to be fired from either a helicopter or a jet.

For those with long memories, this is the army's second attempt to replace the HELLFIRE. The Joint Common Missile was awarded to Lockheed in 2004, but was canceled less than a year later by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Senate-House authorizers passed a defense policy bill today that could keep F-22 production going one more year through 2010, but also attached a big condition: Most of the money can't be spent until the next president's staff decides that buying more F-22s "would be in the best interests of the nation". Lockheed is now on contract to build 183 F-22s. The US Air Force wants almost twice that many. So how many would Barack Obama or John McCain want?

The DEW Line and Addison Schonland, of the Innovation Analysis Group in San Diego, teamed up this week for a podcast discussion about the Saab Gripen's recent inroads in F-35 Joint Strike Fighter territory in Northern Europe, as well as the C-130XL debate.

Listen to the podcast here.

I also recommend checking out the Ares blog this week to read or participate in a most profound and informed debate about the relevance and strategy of the F-35. I particularly liked Solomon's thoughts about the program, which I'll excerpt here:

    I keep being amazed at the ability of certain people in the media and on these pages to overlook the history of this aircraft. The F-35 was to be part of the Air Forces --Air Dominance strategy.
    That meant a force composed of STEALTH AIRCRAFT. Once again boys and girls, if you're saying that stealth is irrelevant then I say put the avionics package, engines, etc...into new build F-15's perhaps add canards and you have your relatively cheap war winner. The Navy did essentially that with the F/A-18 and the boys in blue stated that it was no upgrade.
    Secondly. The glue for this is the international buys and I'm not talking about the Dutch or the Australians. I'm talking about the UK, Spain, Italy and perhaps India who along with the USMC will be needing a MODERN, HIGH PERFORMANCE REPLACEMENT for the AV-8B, Sea Harrier, Harrier GR.9's ....
    Lastly, the performance figures are faulty. Load up an F-22 in stealth configuration and it won't hold as many missiles as the SU-35. In the same scenario (with the performance capabilities of the AIM-120D) it would still be within "knife cutting range of the SU and although its only rumor, I've heard, read, whatever that the F-22 is no knife fighting airframe.
     IF your arguments are that STEALTH is not the "winner" that many believe it is, then upgrades to legacy airframes is the way to go. If you're a believer in Air Dominance, ISR warfare and the supremacy of Electronic Attack, then the only real choice is the F-35.

You gotta love YouTube! (Tip: MW)

An extraordinary briefing slide from Northrop Grumman's press conference on the B-2 at AFA last week has perhaps inadvertently tipped me off to the US Air Force's new airborne networking
strategy. [Click on the picture below to see a larger image.]

This slide about the B-2's networking roadmap offers the first detailed glimpse I've seen of the USAF's latest networking strategy for all airborne platforms, and reveals some very significant changes in the architecture.

Most importantly, gone is the Rockwell Collins Tactical Targeting Networking Technology (TTNT) from the picture. Instead, its chief competitor -- the Harris Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) -- is listed. The MADL is the baseline data link for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. TTNT's exclusion from the list may indicate that MADL will also be added to the F-22.

Another very interesting new term introduced is the "Advanced Tactical Data Link" (ATDL). This would appear to introduce a new networking technology that has the power to connect all of the disparate data links already in operation. I'm wondering if this is a new term for the "Objective Gateway" program, or perhaps some new technology?

Maj Gen Charles Davis has famously accused Boeing of spreading "lies and half-truths" about the F-35, the program he happens to own. Now, Davis also thinks the Aussies and the Center for Defense Information may be on a (larger, perhaps) conspiracy to thwart a pending batch of contract signings.

I am reminded of an old saying: You're not paranoid. They really are out to get you.

Here's my news story:

Lockheed Martin and the US Department of Defense are attacking the motivation behind a recent barrage of criticism aimed at the basic combat abilities of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Such "false claims" published in separate reports a few days apart have become a significant business risk for the programme, said Maj Gen Charles Davis, chief of the F-35 joint programme office.

Thanks to Lockheed Martin for releasing the first concept drawing of the wider, larger C-130XL. This concept is still in the realm of a "study". A go-ahead decision is not necessary for at least a couple of years. The overall goal is to increase the C-130's maximum cargo limit to about 65,000lbs, depending of the US Air Force's requirements. The XL would compete for orders against the Airbus A400M and C-17B.

For the past five years, the Lockheed Martin C-5A's survival as an operational fleet has depended mainly on political intervention from two US senators -- Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy.

Biden, now the Democrats' nominee for vice president, hosts the 436th Military Airlift Wing, which includes a composite C-5A/B squadron, in his home state of Delaware. Kennedy's home state of Massachusetts is clinging to the C-5As of the 439th Airlift Wing to save Westover Air Reserve Base from topping the next list of base closures.

In 2004, the Biden-Kennedy Senate duo rescued the C-5A by literally making it illegal for the US Air Force to park the 1960s-era airlifter in the boneyard. Such legislation is usually inserted anonymously, but, fortunately, the pair later admitted their role in this 2007 press release.

When the next Congress is sworn in next year, however, it's not yet clear what role either champion of the C-5A will have in the Senate's affairs.

If the Obama/Biden ticket wins, of course, Biden's new duties will include becoming the president pro tempore of the Senate. However, his political fate will no longer be entirely linked to keeping Delaware voters happy. Moreover, even if Biden loses, Dover's long-term future is secure even without the C-5A, as the base will receive the first re-engined C-5M in 2009 and already operates Boeing C-17s.

For very different reasons, Kennedy's ability to enforce the C-5A retirement ban next year is much more unclear. Kennedy is unfortunately facing serious health issues. He has recently made a full recovery from brain surgery to remove cancer, and he plans to return to the Senate in January.

Meanwhile, the US Air Force is poised to make a frontal assault on the Senate's C-5A retirement ban.

Last spring, then Transportation Command chief General Norton Schwartz linked future purchases of the C-17 to corresponding retirements of the oldest C-5As. Schwartz is now the USAF's chief of staff, and has already expressed his support for extending C-17 production until a next generation airlifter or tanker is able to enter active production. According to Schwartz's own statements, the C-17 line is dead unless the C-5A retirement ban is removed.

The history of the C-5A fleet is a story of survival in the face of huge odds, starting with its scandalous development phase in the late-1960s. It now faces perhaps its biggest existential threat since those early days. Given the airlifter's legendary political resiliency, I won't be the first to bet against it.

The Core Component Jammer (CCJ) could be the next big thing in electronic warfare. Mounted on the wings of a B-52s, these jamming pods would wipe out enemy radar tracking from hundreds of miles away, clearing the airspace for air-to-ground strikes by fighters, bombers and, possibly, UAVs.
This assumes, of course, that the CCJ will survive the US Air Force's byzantine budgeting process, and, of course, the gauntlet of technical challenges that surely lie ahead.
For now, all we have to show for the CCJ is this very interesting marketing video made by Boeing.
I found this video on a CD lying around on a table with other give-aways at Boeing's exhibit booth at the Air Force Association's Air & Space 2008 convention in Washington DC.

Northrop Grumman is offering a new active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar as a retrofit upgrade for older-model F-16s. It is called the Scalable Agile Beam Radar, and it is derived from the company's work on the agile beam radar for the F-16 Block 60 (UAE, India) and the APG-70/81 (F-22/F-35).

The competitor to SABR is the Raytheon Advanced Combat Radar (RACR), and I will gladly present a video of that product if one becomes available (hint!).

Last May, I pleaded in vain for Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works to show me details of their offering for the STUAS/Tier II contract.

Turns out all I had to do was wait a few months to troll around their AFA exhibit.

The photos below show the appropriately named "STUAS" aircraft designed by Skunk Works. It instantly ranks with the Raytheon/Swift Killer Bee as one of the sexier designs.

This line probably got the biggest applause during General Norton Schwartz's keynote address at the AFA convention yesterday, which was a bit odd since the room was full of the very people he was politely asking to stay quiet.

"The profession of arms demands a high standard of relationships between military professionals and the industry that crafts our military means. I am speaking of the unfortunate deterioration of the relationship between the Air Force and industry that of late manifests hyperbole, insensitivity, and a lack of proper communication. It is my personal view that military professionals, including those who have retired from active service, have an obligation to refrain from taking sides in public debates on key acquisition programs. [Spontaneous applause erupts.] We do not want to repeat the KC-X tanker experience."

I almost hesitate to post these videos. The quality is obviously not spectacular, and unfortunately the audio did not make it through YouTube's processing system.

But if you're interested on next-generation technology military engines, this data presented in this series of

Boeing is offering to deliver the C-17B in 2016, if someone decides they want to order it, said Jean Chamberlain, Boeing C-17 program manager.

However, that order would depend on continuous C-17A production surviving through 2015.

Boeing is on contract now to deliver 190 C-17As through 2009, and will likely receive funds in October to deliver 15 more in 2010.

That leaves a 5-year gap from 2011-2015: the gap that must be filled.

Boeing forecasts a foreign market for 12-15 C-17As over the next 5 years.

That leaves the USAF facing a potential bill to buy 48 - 60 more C-17As, depending on annual production rates, to avoid the C-17B-killing gap.

General Norton Schwartz tossed a very subtle blank check to Boeing in his press conference yesterday.

Schwartz, a former C-17 pilot himself, said he prefers to hand-off active production of airlifters to tankers.

By inference, Schwartz could mean that C-17 production continues until active production of tankers begins.

If the recent history of the KC-X contract is any guide, it could still be many, many years before a hand-off is possible, especially if active production means full-rate production.

Previously, as TRANSCOMchief, Schwartz supported extending C-17 production to 205.

Apologies for the fuzzy picture. General Wurster, chief of AFSOC, strangely asked people to not take pictures during his presentation. We were in a public forum, but I was a little nervous about snapping a quick picture with air force special forces surrounding me.

Anyway, Wurster explained AFSOC's modernization priorities. So here they are:

1. Replace 37 MC-130s. Wurster said they would all be replaced with the C-130J, but USAF has told me there could be a competition.

2. Accelerate plan to acquire all 50 CV-22s by 2017.

3. Acquire 16 C-27Js in next 6 or 7 years.

4. Improve theater mobility. AFSOC now operates 19 U-28s and leases four Dash-8s.

5. Fully develop Predator/Reaper capability.

I asksd: "Sir, please prioritize how you see next-generation bomber in the next QDR?"

Schwartz: "This is a vital priority for the country, and we will certainly make a fact-based but strong argument for NGB as we move into the spring/summer of 09."

USAF will provide options to next administration that could lead to a new contract signing from eight months to 4 years after the next president takes office in January, said Gen Norton Schwartz, new chief of staff.

Donley is at the end of his speech and hasn't yet said a word about next-generation bomber. He also has not said the word "F-22" either.

Maybe he's waiting for the Q and A?

By the way, there's a bad typo in my first post this morning. The model used as the symbol of this year's AFA is the F-15E, not the NGB.

Acting SECAF starts speech with great understatement: "Well, my friends, it's been an interesting summer."

He followed by describing what he was doing on 5 June, the day Wynne and Moseley resigned.

"I was worried about getting the Pentagon memorial ready on time, and getting ready to go to the beach. Well, I never made it to the beach."

Meet the newly-designated C-27J Stinger II and congratulations to the AFA's Marc Schantz for being the first to tell me what the original Stinger was.

Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR) is Northrop Grumman's AESA upgrade for older-model F-16s.

It's also Northrop's answer to Raytheon's RACR concept, whichyu aims to break-up Northrop's monopoly on the global F-16 radar market with the APG-68.

"We intend to offer this radar for a mechanically-scanned price," said Dave Wallace.

I'll post a very interesting video later.

This is a quasi-new development. Basically, it's a Global Hawk with an open architecture to use for BAMS, international orders, and US NOAA. New sensors include BAE's quasi-secret SPIRITT payload.

The ribbon has been cut! Alas, I'm off to a Northrop Grumman brief on RQ-4 Global Hawk.

The first thing I see walking into the AFA convention is the cover of this month's Air Force magazine, which features a painting of a formation flight of Boeing P-12Bs from the 1930s.

The next thing I see is the AFA billboard featuring NOT the F-22, not the F-35 and not the NGB. Instead, it's a model of the Boeing NGB.

Hmmmm . . .

Paris has Le Bourget, London has Farnborough and Washington DC has ... well, AFA.

The annual convention of the Air Force Association starts tomorrow morning at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel, located (appropriately?) about three blocks from the city zoo.

The US lacks a proper aerospace industry air show, but we do have AFA (and, to be fair, the NBAA annual convention, too).

I've finally managed to work out the trick of using Flickr to upload photos from my cell phone directly onto the blog in near real-time (thanks FlightBlogger!). I'll post the most interesting sights from the exhibit hall, as well as quick reports from press conferences, speeches, interviews, etc.

Coming fast upon four of the most momentous months in USAF history (SECAF/CSAF fired; new leadership appointed, including a non-fighter-jock CSAF; and, of course, the overturned, then cancelled, KC-X contract), this should be one of the more interesting AFA conventions in recent memory.

Also, check out my Twitter feed for updates as well!

Barack Obama, the Democratic party's nominee for President, brought the KC-X competition into the presidential campaign today in a speech to the International Association of Machinists.

"John McCain just doesn't get it. Just ask your brothers and sisters at Boeing. Because while it was right for the Pentagon to cancel competition yesterday for the next generation of tankers, it was wrong for John McCain to reward two of the Washington lobbyists who worked against Boeing with jobs on his campaign."

The lobbyists remark is a jab at McCain based on the six-month-old news that two of his advisers were among those who fought against Boeing's attempt to block a competitive tanker acquisition. 

Honeywell has applied for a patent to use drones as anti-missile escorts for airlines as they approach and takeoff from major airports. Interestingly, the patent application filed on 14 August uses a drawing of a Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk as the notional aircraft.

Source: USPTO.gov

The idea is to use the UAV to detect the missile launch and dispense flares that should divert the heat-seeking missile's attention.

This is apparently Honeywell's alternative to the more direct method of installing directed infrared countermeasure turrets on the airliners.

According to the patent application, here's how the idea works:

"This formation drone aircraft, which carries various missile detection and diversion equipment, is controlled by a wireless data link that is coupled directly into the airliner's flight control system.

When the formation drone determines that a missile is being viewed by a missile sensor head, the formation drone lays down a predetermined pattern of exploding flares to divert the missile away from the airliner, attempts to spoof the missile using laser countermeasures, or sacrifices itself to protect the airliner."

Secretary of Defense Bob Gates canceled the KC-X solicitation. That means the next administration must start over from the beginning. The bidding teams can't simply dust off their current proposals and re-submit. The US Air Force must instead go back to the drawing boarding and begin anew the solicitation process. If the previous round is any guide, this could take at least two to three years.

Here are a few of the questions I'll be asking all the experts in the coming days, but everybody feel free to take a crack at them.

1. Can Northrop Grumman and Boeing be reimbursed for the money they've spent so far to submit their proposals?
2. Does this mean direct political interference in the acquisition process is here to stay?
3. Will Boeing's victorious allies in Congress sidetrack the solicitation process next year by simply inserting the funds to buy KC-767s, citing an urgent requirement to replace aged KC-135s?
4. Will Northrop continue to pursue the contract with EADS North America, or will the Los Angeles-based prime decide that it's not worth the trouble?
5. Will a 2- to 3-year delay create an opening for Boeing to propose a KC-787?
   

Why does all the big KC-X news break while I'm sequestered at an unrelated press conference?

I was just sitting down for a Pentagon media roundtable on the C-130 in June when the GAO upheld Boeing's protest. And I was in the midst of a 3-hr briefing today by BAE Systems when the Secretary of Defense Bob Gates released the decision to cancel the competition.

Canceling the competition is the greater surprise, to my mind. They gave up? Threw in the towel? Why? What does the current administration have to lose by moving forward on the competition, if they are leaving office after January anyway? Why not continue to try to do what they believed was best for the air crews who need a new tanker? They can't control what happens after they select a bidder, but don't they still have a duty to at least try?

How do you attract press coverage amidst the star (literally)-studded speaking schedule of the Air Force Association's annual convention in Washington DC next week?

You hold your press conferences a week early! All of them.

I'm headed out this morning for the Rosslyn, Virginia, offices of BAE Systems, Inc. (The ", Inc." at the end subtly denotes the US-based corporate unit of BAE Systems, which of course is based in the UK.)

In the meantime, enjoy this powerpoint introduction to today's BAE Systems, Inc. Please forgive the lack of graphics. I received a paper copy of the briefing and transcribed it into the powerpoint format.

BAE Systems, Inc.ppt

Airbus is increasing the maximum takeoff weight for the A330-200 airliner by 10,000 pounds, or 5 tons. The new, 238-ton aircraft will be available after 2010.

Derek Davies, investor marketing director for Airbus, publicly unveiled the slightly heftier A330 at the US Valuation Conference, which I'm attending this morning. (The conference is hosted at the Jury's Hotel in Washington DC by Flight affiliate Commercial Aviation Online.)

The modification is aimed at making the A330 a slightly more attractive alternative for airlines to the 787, which is already at least 15 months late and currently riding out a machinists' strike.

I asked Davies if the change could also be applied to the tanker variant of the A330, allowing the aircraft an extra margin of fuel for offload.

He replied: "I think that makes clear sense."

Davies deferred all questions about the US Department of Defense tanker contract to Northrop Grumman.

Joint Heavy Lift (JHL) is the at least five-year-old concept to develop a new rotorcraft with the power to carry roughly the same payload as the Airbus A400M. It would be at least 50% larger than the Mi-26, the largest production helicopter in history.

The American Helicopter Society now says the US Congress wants to kill it before it really even starts (although the concept has been worked on since at least 2003).

Here's the letter that the AHS sent to the leaders of the Congressional appropriations and authorization committees. It's basically a last-minute appeal from a death row inmate to the governor for a stay of execution.

FY08ReprogramRequest.pdf

I've been waiting for nearly a year to use that headline.

It was at the Air Force Association convention last year that I first asked Lockheed Martin the question: Will you study widening the C-130? I got a "no comment" back then. Finally, one week before the AFA convention this year, the secret is finally out. Lockheed has confirmed to me it is studying the viability of making a wider version of the 55-year-old C-130 available after 2015.

Read the full story here at FlightGlobal.com, or simply click on the link below.

I hope everyone enjoyed Vladimir Karnozov's excellent analysis while I was away on travel last week.

I can now disclose that I was on assignment in Brazil. I spent the week visiting Embraer's aircraft factories scattered far across Sao Paolo state. I've never seen so much sugar cane in my life.

And I spent the weekend in Rio de Janeiro (er, aviation journalism is a rough business).

Here's the video from my window seat (Obrigado, Luis!) on takeoff from Santos Dumont airport located in the heart of the city. This is truly one of the most amazing takeoff panoramas you'll see anywhere in the world. Note the water appearing under the wing only a few seconds after rotation -- yikes!

This blogger is traveling on assignment. Vladimir Karnozov, Flight's Moscow-based correspondent, presents an after action report from the Russian perspective on the Georgia air war in a five-part series. Here's Part 3.

War in Georgia and more money for Glonass

Believe it or not, the first program that received a boost following the war in Georgia is Russia's Global Satellite Navigation System, the Glonass.

On 25 August Vladimir Putin signed one more Russian government order allocating additional funds for the project. These will go to increase the constellation from the previously planned 24 to 30 Glonass-M satellites, and development of next-generation Glonass-K. In practical terms, the move doubles annual spending on the project.

This new Russian government order was expected since March 2008. But the Kremlin hesitated. Yet, Putin signed the document the day after meeting the crewmembers of the downed Tu-22M3-R. A coincidence? Not likely.

Colonel Igor Zinov may have found the right words to explain the need of the Russian air force in the means of accurate navigation. Perhaps he told Georgian TV the truth when stating he had to perform a second pass over Gori to ensure the Tupolev was right on the designated target. Had the aircraft been equipped with Glonass navigation system, this would have been unnecessary.

The new Russian government order on the Glonass calls for allocation of additional money on development of the next-generation Glonass-K satellites.

In addition to the primary navigation function, these will also be used for secured communications and other purposes. That will help serve another acute problem of the Russian armed forces, namely shortage of modern means of communications and secured lines of data exchange.

Russian servicemen did not hide their impression about the means of communications found in the abandoned bases of the Georgian army.

This blogger is traveling on assignment. Vladimir Karnozov, Flight's Moscow-based correspondent, presents an after action report from the Russian perspective on the Georgia air war in a five-part series. Here's Part 3.

War could tweak Kremlin's export objectives

Until recently the main direction for Russian arms sales has been to enable the local industry to earn some hard currency in order to survive in the condition of small domestic orders.

Now, a new age of relations with the West is dawning, following NATO statements that its business with Russia shall not be "as usual".

Russia's growing wealth may prompt the Kremlin to make a change. Certain countries could be offered weapon deals through which the Kremlin would seek political and military, rather than pure economic, gains.

This change is already shining through in the case of Syria, a poor country but a long-standing ally with interesting geographic location.

There are a few things that made Kremlin angry with Israel. First is a bombing raid deep inside of the Syrian territory, targeting an object near Turkish border.

Second is the humiliating way with which the Israel air force overflew the Syrian President's Palace on the Mediterranean coast months after Vladimir Putin promised Bashaar Assad to supply Strelets short-range SAMs exactly for the purpose of protecting his Palace. Third and most recent cause is new facts of Israeli military aid for Tbilisi, including supply of 8 Hermes 450 and 4 Sky Lark reconnaissance UAVs, and modernization of over 40 T-72M tanks.

The Kremlin has already given go-ahead for deliveries of MiG-29 and MiG-31 fighters to Syria, as well as air defense systems such as the Pantsyr. It may add Iskander tactical ballistic missiles and long-range SAMs in exchange for naval bases.

Another important client is Iran. Agreement on license production of up to 100 Tu-204 airliners is planned for signing by the end of this year. Talks continue on license production of Kamov helicopters. Meanwhile, Tehran is seeking purchase of Sukhoi jetfighters with possible extension to their license production.

Besides, Tehran is considering purchase of the Chinese FC-1 fighters powered by Russia's Klimov RD-93 engines and using the same powerplant on indigenously developed fighters. Close to sending its first indigenous satellite into orbit, Iran is interested in Russian expertise and technologies in the rocketry and spacecraft area.

Iran is one of few countries that did not blame Moscow for "disproportioned use of force" in Georgia; instead, Tehran warned Washington not to poke its nose into Caucasus. It's a sign of warming Moscow - Tehran relations.

Cooperation in the military area is at a good level, with Iran continuing license production of T-72 tanks, BMP-2 IFVs, Kalashnikov assault rifles and lots of other equipment.

Besides, sensitive technology leaks might have taken place - with Kremlin turning a blind eye, just to mention the Iranian-made "rocket-propelled torpedo" bearing close resemblance to Russia's Shkval.

Russian media suggested that the US-led project "democratic Georgia" may target creation of a suitable base for invasion in Iran. A Christian country located within a jetfighter range of north-east Iran may prove convenient. Besides, placing anti-ballistic-missile defenses in Georgia is a lot more reasonable than in Poland. Moscow may oblige its neighbor by expanding cooperation in the fields of civil aviation, space and defense should the US seek to "punish" Russia for "disproportionate use of force" in Georgia.

Same reason can help develop cooperation between Moscow, Caracas and Havana. The Kremlin has already provided loans under Cuba's sovereign guarantees for supply of Il-96 and Tu-204 jetliners to Cubana de Aviacion.

Similar deal is being negotiated with Venezuela. Besides, Caracas is seeking to purchase a total of 80 Russian military aircraft and helicopters. In return Moscow may seek bases for its navy and strategic aviation, since it is not far from the US homeland.

This blogger is traveling on assignment. Vladimir Karnozov, Flight's Moscow-based correspondent, presents an after action report from the Russian perspective on the Georgia air war in a five-part series. Here's Part 3.

After shootdown over Gori, Tu-22M3 needs upgrades

On 9 August a Tu-22M3-R was shot down near Gori, with one crewmember dead (navigator Major Igor Rzhavitin) and two (commander Colonel Igor Zinov and second pilot Major Vyacheslav Malkov) taken prisoners.

The loss of such a valuable aircraft is humiliating for the Russian air force and also for the Kremlin, as the captured pilots were being widely featured in the mass media.

On 18 August, Moscow exchanged fifteen prisoners of war for five of her own. Zinov and Malkov were placed into Moscow hospitals, where they were visited by Vladimir Putin.

Ex-president, now prime-minister, was accompanied by defense minister Anatoly Serdyukov and air force commander Aleksandr Zelin. Since many things in modern Russia are decided by mister Putin, his hospital visit and lengthy talks to both pilots may produce an outcome. This is all the more due in the view of long overdue decision on future of the type in Russian service.

Russia's Long Range Aviation inventory consists of 16 Tu-160 and 74 Tu-95MS intercontinental bombers, as well as 124 "Euro strategic" Tu-22M3.

Upgrade solutions for the first two types have been tested and certified, and are now being implemented. At the same time, the Tu-22M3 has remained "as is", due to funding constrains. In mid-1990s the air force was going to withdraw the type after the fleet's calendar lifetimes expire, in order to save money on keeping Tu-160 and Tu-95MS in service. The situation is changing. Firstly, the Kremlin has the money and the will to maintain strategic bombers as a means of "active deterrence".

With Russia-NATO and Russia-US relations cooling, the Kremlin may take back its long-held promise on in-flight refueling systems on the Tu-22M.

During talks on strategic weapon reductions, Leonid Brezhnev promised Jim Carter that the entire Tu-22 fleet would not have in-flight capability, without which it could not strike targets in the US homeland.

Today, a thorough modernization of the Tu-22M3 fleet, with focus on electronic warfare means, accurate navigation, extended range and lifetime can help the Kremlin boost the might of its strategic aviation in a cost-effective way.

This seems especially attractive in the medium term, when Tu-95s start to leave service due to expiring lifetimes.

In the meantime, the Kremlin is considering whether to continue Tu-160 production or spend on a next-generation bomber.

The Tu-160 is very expensive, unnecessary large and complicated. Besides, its maker Kazan aviation plant is in a pretty difficult condition. The plant can assemble only two more Tu-160s before parts stock runs out. Resumption of parts production is unlikely for many reasons, including economical.

Perhaps, the Kremlin would find it suitable to order Kazan assembly of a few Tu-22M3 aircraft from the existing parts stock as an interim measure before a next-generation bomber becomes available.

This blogger is traveling on assignment. Vladimir Karnozov, Flight's Moscow-based correspondent, presents an after action report from the Russian perspective on the Georgia air war in a five-part series. Here's Part 2.

Time to restart Su-25 production, but where?

The Sukhoi Su-25 fought on both sides and once again proved an irreplaceable tool of close air support [CAS] for troops on the battlefield.

This mirrors the A-10A case with the USAF, as demonstrated in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Armored attack aircraft with high maneuverability and heavy weapons load remains the best CAS solution. Although the five-day war took a heavy toll on both Russian and Georgian Su-25 inventories, this is, in a sense, another indication of the important role the aircraft played in the conflict.

If any troops experienced "aerophobia" during this war (and quite many surely did), this is a great deal due to the awesome Su-25. The Georgian war makes the case even more impressive, knowing that Su-25s fighting on both sides were made by Tbilisi aviation plant!

The enterprise has been without work for more than 15 years, with very vague chances for revival. Besides, many components came to Tbilisi from all over the former Soviet Union, which makes it impossible to re-launch Su-25 production there now.

(Admittedly, Georgian government considered this option some time ago, with intent to place a worthwhile order).

At the same time, Moscow may consider restoration of Su-25 production at Ulan-Ude plant, which used to make Su-25UT twin-seat operational trainer version and Su-25UTG carrier-borne trainer.

The plant still keeps some parts in stock for Su-25UTG and Su-39 (advanced version of Su-25). The Russian navy is known to have requested a batch of Su-25UTGs to supplement few in service on its only carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov.

While the UTG may require nor or little changes, the Su-39 must find a new, more modern engine, as well as avionics set, to become worthy of series production.

Some time ago. the Russian air force was looking for solutions to its need for a "Lightweight Combat Aircraft". A single seat version of the Yakovlev Yak-130 fighter trainer was the leading contender.

Can an armed version of a dedicated trainer actually replace well-armored, purposely designed attack aircraft? Perhaps, it can only supplement it.

Flight's Moscow correspondent Vladimir Karnozov guest-blogs this week with a five-part after action report on the Georgia Air War, obviously from the Russian perspective. Karnozov is kindly filling in while this blogger is traveling all week on an assignment. Here's part 1.

Russia  to increase military spending. What will the money go for?

Russian president Dmitry Medvedev said that additional funding for new equipment for the Russian armed forces will be provided to eliminate deficiencies highlighted during the war. Petrodollars are in abundance, but how shall they be spent? Certainly, that's a key question for Kremlin strategists now. Probably, they will set immediate, medium and long-term objectives taking account of the war lessons.

We may expect the following in the short-term:

• The two main workhouses of this war, the Sukhoi Su-24M frontal bomber and Su-25 attack aircraft, will continue to stay in service for quite a long time simply because the capability of the industry is insufficient to replace them in a reasonably short time. It is expected that the Kremlin will allocate additional money to speed up fleet upgrades into recently certified Su-24M2 and Su-25SM versions with improved night strike capability, accurate navigation and extended PGM arsenal.
• Additional measures may include reducing vulnerability for the Su-25, which accounted for three of the air force's four losses.
• Immediate and medium-term actions are expected in relation to the Tupolev Tu-22M fleet. This may well be given a top priority in the view of the humiliating loss in Georgian airspace of a Tu-22M3-R, a spy-plane variation of the Tu-22M3 supersonic swing-wing "Euro-strategic" bomber. On 9 August one Tupolev was downed by a radar-guided missile, most likely the 9K37 Buk [NATO SA-11 Gadfly]. The airplane was flown by top-class military test-pilots (the machine belonged to Valery Chkalov's Main Flight Test Center of the Russian MoD, Russian acronym GLITS), which makes the case even more humiliating for Moscow.

Medium-term

With the war having once again demonstrated the role of air force, the Kremlin could look more kindly upon the wishes of its military pilots. Russia's air force commander voiced those in July:

• funding for a three year purchase contract for Su-34 frontal bombers
  
• more money to buy Su-35 multirole fighters for two or three regiments
  
• accelerating production of the Mi-28N attack and Ansat training and utility helicopters.

Long-term

The war could not have been won without a massive air lift operation on moving 5,000 of paratroopers from Central Russia to Vladikavkaz (from where they marched to Tskhinvali), and deployment of 9,000 paratroopers to Sukhumi (where their presence led to the Georgian troops left the Kodori Gorge without fighting). Although the Russian Transport Aviation proved up to the task, it had to stress available resources.

The An-124 Ruslan and Il-76 fleets are old, needing modernization. At the same time, restarting Ruslan production may look less attractive to Moscow now, in the view of Antonov design house's location in Kiev, the capital of a Georgian ally. It may choose to spend the money on Il-476 (reincarnation of the Il-76) and refurbishing more Il-76MDs with PS90A turbofans (Il-76MD-90).

Less obvious, but nonetheless pressing need is modernization of the vast Mi-8 and Mi-24 helicopter fleet: these machines made a substantial contribution into the Russian victory, but did so without much exposure.

Finally, the Kremlin's greater desire to spend extra money on defense may help RSK MiG materialize its dream of selling rejected Algerian MiG-29SMT/UBTs to the Russian air force. This would substantially decrease the debt burden on the company (the debts amount to nearly $2billion), while the Russian air force would get a good number of potent multirole fighters with long calendar lifetimes.