WikiLeaks.org yesterday posted an internal Lockheed Martin presentation that could get the US Air Force into yet more legal trouble, albeit for alleged actions possibly committed almost a decade ago.

Several statements in the alleged Lockheed presentation may indicate USAF leaders in the late-1990s spent taxpayer money to pursue exporting the F-22 stealth fighter to foreign governments, such as Australia.


The so-called "Obey amendment", tacked onto defense appropriations bills since 1997, says: "None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to approve or license the sale of the F-22A advanced tactical fighter to any foreign government."

Christopher Bolkcom, the Congressional Research Service's expert on military aircraft issues, says the brief "raises the question on whether the air force violated the Obey Amendment."

The same question has been raised before by blogger and former US airman Eric Palmer, now an ex-pat civilian living in Australia. Palmer published a 1,500-word article on F-16.net on 23 May entitled "The other F-22 export story". The article, which did not city any sources, contained several of the details later posted on the WikiLeaks report. Palmer's article concluded:

"F-22 FMS briefings and briefing slides by industry and the USAF included F-22 FMS logos and facts and figures mentioning the advantages that a foreign used F-22 brought to a coalition air campaign in expected firepower and losses of the total effort. Obey or not, it is hard to believe that some U.S. government money was not spent to set up F-22 FMS."

Palmer's blog -- dubbed Worldwide War Pigs -- was the first yesterday to report on the F-22 presentation anonymously leaked to WikiLeaks.org.

Stay tuned for more information as the story develops ...

I guess it's "so long, so wrong" for Rockwell Collins' once-heralded Tactical Targeting Network Technology (TTNT).

InsideDefense.com's subscription-only service reports this afternoon that the Pentagon has selected the Harris Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) for both the F-22A and the F-35.

Several years of debate over the future wideband networking systems for stealth jets appears to be over -- at least until the next administration anyway!

This report comes out a month after I posted a chart on this blog showing MADL as the future "advanced tactical data link" and the TTNT as strangely absent.

The Rafale vs. Gripen NG competition is heating up in Switzerland.

Swiss spotters have been having a field day with the Rafale's 30-day evaluation near Lucerne. Check out some lovely Rafale pics at the Swiss Aviation Photography Forum (Hat tip: G2 Solutions). Click on the jump for more.

It's hard to believe today how low aircraft survivability equipment -- for helicopters, especially -- ranked on the Pentagon's funding priority list in 2002.

Back then, ATK's AAR-47 UV-based jam-head was grossly underfunded, the US Army robbed funds for producing a fully-developed, second-generation common missile warning system (CMWS), and no one dared to dream of moving to a third-generation technology with a two-color, infrared (IR) seeker.

My, how times have changed.

Barrels of cash have poured into the AAR-47 and CMWS accounts since 2002, and both have produced real results in the field.

Now, the US Navy and US Marine Corps are moving forward with a third-generation program called the joint and allied threat awareness system (JATAS), aiming to start replacing all the AAR-47s and BAE Systems AAR-57s over the next two decades.

It will not only move beyond UV seeker technology, which is limited to a range of about 2 miles, but will also seek to introduce a hostile fire indicator. That would finally give helicopter crews awareness that they're being shot at, and not just by missiles.

I interviewed the USN's and USMC's program managers for JATAS yesterday, and I'll post the story here when it gets published on FlightGlobal.com

I spill a lot of ink writing about all the bad stuff going on in military acquisition. It's nice to write about something that's working for a change.

This is officially linked to ARH-70, but this is the second major layoff by a defense contractor in the last two months. BAE Systems also closed a factory in Alabama, laying off nearly 200 people. Not quite yet a trend, but it's heading there.

Stay tuned for more details. Here's Bell's press release --

Officials at Bell Helicopter announced today that the company would lay off approximately 500 workers.  This represents about four percent of the Bell Helicopter workforce and includes a 20 percent reduction in the management-level staff. 

This layoff was triggered by the U.S. Department of Defense's recent termination of the ARH-70A helicopter development contract, including the impact of the loss of the planned production contract.

In accordance with government regulations, Bell will provide pay and benefits to the affected employees for 60 days following the date of their layoff notice. Bell will also provide severance pay in accordance with standard company policy

Commenting on the layoff, Richard Millman, president and CEO of Bell Helicopter, said, "With the loss of the ARH-70A program, we must make changes in our staffing and structure to reduce costs and ensure that our products remain competitive.  Staffing decisions are always difficult, especially in light of the global economic conditions. Our actions are intended to ensure that we retain the talent most needed for the projected business environment and treat every affected employee fairly and with respect and dignity."

In the end, even the US Coast Guard's professional lifesavers couldn't save the Bell TR918 Eagle Eye. After spending a decade adrift in the high-seas of marketing failure, the Eagle Eye was dropped a rescue hoist by the USCG's Deepwater program in 2002. But, for all their efforts, the USCG was just keeping a terminal patient on a billion-dollar life support program. A mysterious and never-resolved crash in 2006 grounded the Eagle Eye for good, and the USCG finally stopped payments to Bell earlier this year.

Eight months later, the USCG yesterday dipped their toe back into the ship-based UAS business, sending out a request for information to industry.

All signs point to the Northrop Grumman RQ-8B Fire Scout as the leading candidate. Burned by the Eagle Eye, the USCG is keen to buy a non-developmental solution. Northrop tested a Telephonics-made maritime radar on the Fire Scout in September -- the only USCG payload still unproven on the RQ-8B.

In recent weeks, Israel and Australia have reportedly talked about delaying F-35 purchases in the wake of the global financial crisis.

But it's only been talk.

Today, the financial crisis claimed its first major international arms deal when Malaysia Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawin announced suspending a roughly $650 million contract for Eurocopter EC725s.

That contract had already come under sharp scrutiny. My Singapore-based colleague Siva Govindasamy reported last week that Eurocopter's competitors were furious with the deal, claiming that Malaysia's government ignored standard acquisition procedures.

The excellent Worldwide War Pigs blog today forecasts the challenges awaiting the US Marine Corps' scheduled entry-into-service for the F-35B in 2012, or up to two years before Lockheed Martin has finished testing it.

With such an early IOC and SDD still in progress, this means that there will be a lot of "mistake jets". Where engineering fixes yet to be figured out in testing will be worked on later. This by itself will be fodder for the broken-rifle-all-defense-programs-are-bad-club: "USMC's New Fighter Can't....(fill in the blank).

But it's also worth remembering that the F-35B is really just the tip of the iceberg for the USMC.

The USMC is currently standing up the MV-22 and UH-1Y fleets, while preparing the AH-1Z and F-35B to enter operational and development testing, respectively. Meanwhile, both the VH-71 and the CH-53K are in the thick of their development phases.

Virtually every component of the USMC's rotary and strike fleets is undergoing modernization or replacement at the same time, even as the operational service fights two wars and maintains readiness levels.

It makes you wonder: how long can they keep this pace going?

This blog is named after the famed (if ill-fated) US/Canadian arctic radar screen, guarding against the threat of a Soviet bomber invasion over the polar ice cap.

In that sense, I think it's very appropriate and in no way politically incorrect to show you a Russian love letter to Sarah Palin that contains the lyric: "I want to fly into your airspace".

Is it just me, or does organizing a conference to discuss ways to protect US and coalition aircraft from Iranian surface to air missiles seem a little -- well, you know -- presumptuous?

You can never to be too prepared, I suppose.

So, if you happen to own a secret-level security clearance, it's not too late to book your trip to Huntsville, Alabama, next month. You can not only practice your golf swing in early winter, but also hear the latest threat updates from the Defense Intelligence Agency and the US Army's Missile and Space Intelligence Center. Here's more from the conference web site:

Attendees will receive a hands-on look at current SAM threats in Iran, informative systems specifications, as well as tour the facilities and capabilities of MSIC. Attendance at this conference is appropriate for those involved in the design, development, testing, evaluation and employment of electronic warfare systems, techniques and tactics for protection of U.S. and allied aircraft.

Air Force magazine's Michael Sirak today posts an interesting tally of USAF airframe losses since Sept 11, 2001. The count includes seven aircraft shot down or lost in direct combat and another 58 lost in "contingency" operations.

The manned contingency loss breakdown is: one A-10A, two B-1Bs, one B-2A, one C-5B, one C-130H, one F-15E, four F-16s, two HH-60Gs, two MC-130Hs, one MC-130P, six MH-53s, and one U-2.

The unmanned losses are: 39 MQ/RQ-1 Predators, one MQ-9A Reaper, and two RQ-4A Global Hawks.

The readers have spoken. We have more than 200 votes, and the results show that the mood is pro-moderation.

Given the option to go all-in or all-out for F-22s, F-35s or 6th-gen, most of you think the US Air Force will take the middle road: a few more F-22s paid for by a few less F-35s. A slight majority of one-third of you prefers this approach.

I also detect an interesting statistical break against the all-F-35 solution. It appears that many of those think the USAF will take this approach would really prefer skipping 5th-gen fighters entirely and saving money to invest in a future 6th-gen fleet.

Raytheon announced today that they will demonstrate launching a UAV from an underwater submarine. When I called the company to ask, "How?", they sent me this very helpful graphic.

The full explanation is on the jump, but basically the UAV goes out the trash tube in a canister, floats to the surface and launches.

The two big questions that instantly pop to my mind are 1) Where did that UAV come from? and 2) How do they intend to recover it?

This is The DEW Line's first poll and we're starting it with a double. I want to know what you think the USAF leadership WILL do, and, secondly, what you think they SHOULD do.

The author of a leaked Rand report concluding in a non-peer-reviewed section that the F-35 "can't turn, can't climb, can't run" has apparently left the think-tank. (Read the report here. I obtained a copy of the report a few weeks after it had been leaked to the Australian press.)

Dennis Jensen, an Australian lawmaker, former defense analyst and outspoken F-35 Joint Strike Fighter critic, broke the news about John Stillion's departure in a speech on the floor of parliament in Canberra yesterday.

"His abrupt departure amid the controversy over his report raises some deeply disturbing questions. There are suggestions in some quarters that he was dismissed over the document and that his removal was ordered by the US military," Jensen said.

Read Jensen's full press release on the jump.

Emilie Rutherford at Defense Daily talked to former DOD acquisition chief Paul Kaminiski -- now a Senator Barack Obama adviser -- about the KC-X contract. She reports this evening on the subscription-only Defense Daily web site:

An adviser to Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) said the concept of a dual buy for the Air Force's aerial refueling tanker competition has merit, and the campaign has not ruled out that option for the contract.

The tanker never emerged as a major political issue in the presidential campaign, at least outside of Washington state. An Obama speech six weeks ago, which also took a pro-Boeing stance, made it seem for a moment that McCain's record on the tanker contract would become a campaign issue. Here's what Obama said on September 12, addressing the annual convention of the International Associations 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.

I've written before that trying to keep track of F-35 milestones is like playing whack-a-mole. It's not that I'm blaming Lockheed Martin or the joint program office for intentionally obfuscating. It's just the inherent complexity of a program with milestones spread across three variants and nine development partners. It gets confusing.

But one fixed date that has been very clear -- at least since it was last revised about two years ago -- is October 2013.

That's when the 12-year system development and demonstration (SDD) phase is scheduled to officially close. Finishing SDD requires the program to complete the initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E), the graduation exercise for any new weapons development program.

So it was surprising to read a sudden and almost gratuitous vagueness written into Lockheed's press release today about an unrelated test event.

Please read the last sentence of the excerpted paragraphs below and tell me: What do you think?

The first Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT - News) F-35 Lightning II fighter has finished all planned testing at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., demonstrating that the aircraft, the support crews, and contractor and military service personnel are ready for the dramatically expanded flight testing on the program's horizon.

"This initial round of testing at Edwards is just the beginning," said Doug Pearson, Lockheed Martin vice president of the F-35 Integrated Test Force. "The exceptional performance of the aircraft and those supporting it shows that the team is ready for the fast-paced flight test activities upcoming at Edwards and [Naval Air Station] Patuxent River, Md." By the end of 2009, all 19 F-35 test aircraft will be complete and flight test activities will intensify, leading to Initial Operational Test & Evaluation in the 2013-2014 time frame. 

Six years after the airborne electronic attack system of systems (AEA SOS) concept really got started -- and nearly three years after most of that grandiose strategy fell apart -- electronic warfare (EW) is back on the drawing boards.

The first draft of a new investment strategy based on a capabilities-based assessment now in progress is due on 1 April. (This information came out last Friday at a media roundtable with the DOD's EW leadership hosted by the Association of Old Crows.)

AEA is a touchy subject with the US Air Force. This is not least because the enduring need to jam or destroy enemy air defense systems seems to conflict with the huge investment in low observable technology over the past two decades.

So when the two biggest pieces of the AEA SOS -- the standoff B-52 core component jammer (CCJ) and the stand-in joint unmanned combat air system -- both got axed from the budget in 2006, few were surprised.

Neither technology is expected to make a comeback now even though the USAF loses its USN-supplied escort jamming force of EA-6Bs after 2012.

"They have decided to -- I don't want to say accept risk because that's a bad way to put it -- they've just taken a look at all their needs," Greg Torba, deputy chief of USAF EW and cyber requirements, told us. 

"I think where the air force chose to go down the road of LO -- low observable - technology, and what we can do with that against the cost of the CCJ," Torba added.

Strangely, the apparent lack of support for a CCJ revival didn't seem to bother anyone in the room. Instead, the group is "very pleased with the discussion so far" on the fiscal 2010 budget request that will be unveiled in February, said James "Raleigh" Durham, director of joint advanced concepts for the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Click on the link below to read my transcript from the media roundtable.

This just arrived in my Inbox. I have requested further clarification from the US Air Force, but, while we wait, here's the USAF's statement.

Air Force Plans to Issue Amendment to CSAR-X RFP

The Air Force's Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, Ms. Sue Payton, directed the Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR-X) program staff to issue a minor amendment to the CSAR-X request for proposal.

The offererors have been notified of the pending amendment that will be released soon. The purpose of the amendment is to further clarify how the Air Force will make its source selection decision.

The Air Force has full confidence in the CSAR-X source selection process. The clarification underscores the Air Force's commitment to a fair and transparent competition, consistent with the Secretary of the Air Force's focus on Acquisition excellence.

This amendment and resulting minor delay to the award of contract is not associated with the DoD Inspector General's ongoing audit of the CSAR-X requirements development process. The Air Force expects a final report will be released from the DoD IG later this year.

Aerospace Daily reported this morning that contract award has slipped from later this year to May or June of 2009.

I'm really scratching my head over this one.

When I saw this article in the Jerusalem Post saying Israel may buy fewer F-35s because of the economic crisis, I quickly dismissed the report as bizarre innuendo.

Then comes a report today in the Canberra Times with almost the same message, but involving Australia's senior military commander, who happens to be a noted friend of the F-35 program.

Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston told the Australian Institute of Management leadership seminar yesterday that the US financial situation would be a litmus test for future Australian defence spending.

''If the crisis continues the way it's going in the United States, it will definitely have an effect on the amount of equipment that is produced in the industries in the United States,'' he said. ''We might see, for example, a reduction in the production line of the Joint Strike Fighter ... at this stage we don't know.''

The Rudd Government had planned to buy 100 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, or four squadrons, next year. The Chief of Defence Staff acknowledged the crisis could also hamper other defence projects.

I'm listening to a webcast by Bruce Tanner, Lockheed Martin chief financial officer, who is briefing analysts about the company's third quarter earnings. Here's what he just said.

I think we've talked about, within Aeronautics having, Aeronautics get to about $20 billion a year business area by 2015. F-35 is probably $15 billion-$16 billion of that - that timeframe. So we will be honest, I would like to have to reach those between 2010 and 2015.

This isn't exactly a huge surprise, of course. Current schedules call for the F-35 to be in full-rate production for the US military and foreign customers by 2016. I have just never thought of it in quite those terms.

Keep in mind that Lockheed sees 75 cents of every dollar spent on the F-35, with the remainder split between BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman. So the true value of the F-35 business to industry could be more like $20 billion per year in 2016.

There are many takeaways from Defense News Editor Vago Muradian's excellent interview with Brad Berkson, head of Program, Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) for Secretary of Defense Bob Gates. It was televised yesterday on a local station in the DC metro area as part of Muradian's weekly show.

I'll focus on Berkson's response about the future of the F-35. (You can also check out the video here, or read my full transcript on the jump of this blog page.)

Muradian: What are some of the things though that should be rethought you know by the next team?

Berkson: I think related to that -- it gets to areas like Tacair. So you think about fighters. And who are the air threats for our country? And how many? And what capability do you need of various strike fighter capabilities, bombers, attack aircraft, etc.

Muradian: Even, how many JSFs to buy? I mean, the air force maintains it need about 1,763 JSFs to replace about 1400 F-16s, and there are people who say, "Look, if JSF is that much better, why do we need so many?" Those are the kinds of trades you're talking about?

Berkson: I think, exactly. Unfortunately it's counter-intuitive. That investment is going to be increasing in the next 10 years as we do the capital replacement of the Tacair fleet. So even though while we need to allocate significant portions of our investment accounts to recapitalizing that, the end game -- in other words, when we would stop producing those planes and shut down those lines -- I think, is quite variable in this mix. Whether it's 1,000 or 3,000 or somewhere in between there. Obviously administrations to come will make that final decision.

I quoted Richard Aboulafia last week expressing skepticism that the US Air Force would actually sacrifice the cause of buying more F-22s in order to give the F-35 program a needed funding boost.

This morning, Aboulafia's argument gets an unwitting assist from the Air Force Association.

The air force's main advocacy and lobbying group posted a new presentation to their website today. The brief is titled, "F-22 vs. F-35 comparison", and the conclusions are heavily stacked in favor of the former.

In fact, I'm curious what several foreign governments will think after having invested hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in the F-35's development, largely because of performance promises from a US government that apparently doesn't really like the fighter.

Here's a few examples of how the brief compares the two fighters:

• The F-22 can turn at twice the rate of an F-35
• F-22A in production...F-35A initial operational capability date is 2013...key in considering F-15Cs need to be replaced now
• 'Apples to Apples' or normalized comparison on unit cost would have to consider equal production quantities. Unit costs based on an F-35 buy of 183 and an F-22 buy of 1763 would result in significantly greater F-35 unit cost than current estimates
  

It has been an interesting week in the life of the F-35 program. First, Italy dropped plans to buy two fighters to participate in the initial testing phase, which some could -- and have -- interpreted as a vote of no confidence. Then, InsideDefense.com reported leaked US Air Force budget documents potentially adding billions of dollars to the F-35 program, a seemingly huge and timely shot of fiscal confidence.

But it's possible that neither story is really what it seems.

The leaked USAF budget document calls for retiring 300 fighters and re-investing the $3.4 billion partly to accelerate F-35 procurement. That comes less than three months after the USAF also disclosed a receiving a $5 billion budget plus-up in the next six-year spending cycle, with the proceeds also partly flowing to speed up F-35 deliveries. In sum, some portion of $8.4 billion is being shifted to pay for more F-35s.

On its face, these proposals represent a huge turn-about in the USAF's strategy, which had previously been to buy more F-22s at all costs, even at the expense of the F-35. It also helps restore the USAF's original plan to buy a maximum 110 aircraft per year after 2012, not 48 as currently budgeted. Unit cost savings generated by larger annual orders would greatly help the F-35s affordability, a key concern as several international partners face looming procurement decisions.

But some aerospace industry experts are not convinced the USAF will so easily back off its demands to buy more F-22s. Here's what Richard Aboulafia, vice president of the Teal Group, emailed me:

I think it's prudent to expect Air Force F-35A procurement to stay at about 48 per year.  But the big variable is added funding for F-22s.  That, of course, would largely come out of F-35 funding, which probably helps explain the Air Force's desire to bolster the F-35.  All roads, perhaps, lead back to the Raptor.

So we're back to the question: What is the USAF really up to?

On the other hand, Italy's apparent rejection of the F-35 program earlier this week also might not be what it seems. Within the last two weeks, Italy's Alenia Aeronautica has signed a deal to build 1,200 wing sets for the F-35, serving as a second source to Lockheed Martin. Moreover, Italy is also moving forward on establishing its own final assembly and check out line, and it's very likely that the government simply plans to re-invest the savings from dropping out of the IOT&E phase into the capital needed to build the FACO line.

As expected, the contract to develop the successor to the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior is again up for grabs.

The Department of Defense terminated Bell's contract to develop a military variant of the civil 407 helicopter after development costs roughly tripled and the in-service date was delayed four years.

Here's the DOD's statement, with the first quote by John Young, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics:

"Rather than continue this program", Young said, "I have decided that the best course of action is to provide the Army with an opportunity to define a coherent, disciplined Kiowa Warrior helicopter replacement program, and to obtain more rigorous contract terms for its development."

 

Secretary of the Army Pete Geren stated, "The cost and schedule that were the focus of the decision to award the contract to Bell Helicopter are no longer valid. We have a duty to the Army and the taxpayer to move ahead with an alternative course of action to meet this critical capability for our Soldiers at the best price and as soon as possible."

Here's Bell's statement:

We are extremely disappointed by this decision and still believe that the ARH-70A is the best replacement for the Kiowa Warrior.  The ARH System Development and Demonstration (SDD) contract test aircraft have already accumulated over 1,400 flight hours and have accomplished several important program milestones.

The ARH has proven to be a great performing aircraft and we are in the process of evaluating the impact of this decision and our next steps.

And here's the army's statement:

"We will rapidly pursue a re-validation of the particular characteristics needed for this capability so that we can restart the process of acquiring a manned, armed reconnaissance helicopter," said Lt. Gen. James Thurman.

My suggestion, the M346 MmmBop, has apparently not overwhelmed the readers, so I'm looking out for others.

My Flight co-workers have suggested The Italian Stallion and Rocky.

A former Flight co-worker has contributed the Tweet Too.

But the real prize goes to Teal Group analyst Richard Aboulafia, who is sort of an aerospace-specific Richard Pryor. He has proposed a Top Ten:

10.  Berlusconi (he'd be flattered)
9. YAIT (Yet Another Italian Trainer)
8. AeroVespa
7.  Hawk--sure, it's taken,, but did BAE get a copyright?
6.  Jet Squalus (believe it or not, someone named their trainer that years ago, but it's dead) 5.  AMX Lite
4.  The Green, Earth-Friendly Eco-Trainer.  That's Green.
3.  III-IV-VI
2.  Mario
1.  Fred

AleniaAermacchi needs a nickname for the M346 advanced jet trainer, and it has opened it to public contest. The lucky winner gets a free ride on the M346 over the Italian countryside.

Check out the contest web site, but here are the rules:

• the proposed name must be coherent with the characteristics of the aircraft, whether in terms of shape, technical features, use etc.

• the proposed name must be internationally recognisable, of high impact and easily memorised;

• the proposed name must not replicate or recall other names already in use on other aircraft.

My suggestion: "M346 MmmBop". (Why? The M346 is to a fighter what Hanson is to pop-rock, it's - sadly - recognizable all over the world, it's alliterative, and, you've got to admit, it's catchy!)

Harry Snow, founder of Snow Aviation International, is officially taking orders for his minimally-priced $6.8 million upgrade kit for older C-130E/Hs. Key upgrades include Hamilton Sundstrand NP2000 propellers and Snow-designed 512-gal tip tanks. A three-year series of flight demonstrations has confirmed the eight-bladed propeller system and cleaner aerodynamics reduces takeoff roll by 30%, Snow says. He expects an imminent order from a US government customer, followed by foreign sales.

Randy Hutcherson, EADS North America's hero for capturing the light utility helicopter contract, now gets to work his price-to-win magic on the erstwhile tanker campaign. EADS today named Hutcherson to be "vice president program manager" for EADS North America tankers. (Ed: Er, congratulations?)

Meanwhile, Steven Mundt, the brigadier general who presided over the Comanche-funded revitalization of army aviation, joins EADS as a vice president for business development and strategic planning.

Finally, helo industry veteran David Haines takes over as VP for helicopters.

Which reminds me: Who wants to place bets on the "which helo company gets Paul Bogosian" sweepstakes?

The Pentagon needs to figure out how to buy more little things than fewer big things. The military also needs to optimize for fighting terrorists, while keeping an eye on the proverbial armored column busting through the Fulda Gap.

That's a couple of the very general policy prescriptions from Norm "Last Supper" Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin and Undersecretary of Defense, according to a video interview posted this morning on YouTube.

Augustine is now leading a Congressionally-supported outfit called the Project on National Security Reform, which apparently aims to be one of the agenda-setting groups for the next administration.

Big news this morning from InsideDefense.com.

EXCLUSIVE: Air Force Plans Massive, Early F-15, F-16 Retirements to Save $3.4 Billion

DefenseAlert, Oct. 14, 2008 -- The Air Force is planning dramatic cuts to its fighter force in fiscal year 2010 in an attempt to find $3.4 billion to bolster other combat aircraft, munitions inventories, ISR and manpower efforts, InsideDefense.com has learned.

If true approved, the US Air Force is taking a huge gamble here. The Lockheed Martin F-35A is not scheduled to enter service until at least two years after the aircraft it replaces would be retired, and there's still big uncertainty that Lockheed can stick to the F-35 program's flight test and development schedule.

This also comes almost immediately after Congress blocked the USAF's attempt to retire the U-2 fleet before the RQ-4s were equipped and mature enough to replace them. The USAF has also retired the F-117 fleet as the F-22s entered service.

[Updated] The InsideDefense.com report counts 137 F-15s, 177 F-16s and 9 A-10s will be retired early after 2010. The fleet retirements, if approved, would save $2.2 billion, $1.1 billion and $100 million, respectively. That money would be re-invested to modernize a smaller, conventional fighter force and accelerate F-35 production ramp from 48 to 110 per year, as Lockheed executives predicted a few months ago.

More from the InsideDefense.com article:

"There is some near-term (FY-10-14) risk taken by this move," the document states, summing up the earlier-than-expected retirements of the F-15s, F-16s and A-10s. "However, our analysis shows the FY-10 POM smaller but modernized fighter force, when coupled with a robust bomber fleet, can effectively bridge the gap until the F-35 can be produced in required numbers (ramping to 110) and the F-22 can be modified to a common configuration."

While we wait for the CSAR-X solicitation process to move forward, here's an update on the much-anticipated (read: extremely delayed) STUAS/Tier II competition from Michel Merluzeau's G2 Solutions blog.

Industry sources are hopeful that the Department of the Navy could solidify its Small Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System/Tier II Unmanned Aircraft System (STUAS/Tier II UAS) program by Christmas.

The competition -- for perhaps the last major, all-new UAS by the DOD for several years -- was actually supposed to begin last summer, but then the US Navy jumped into the formerly US Marine Corps-only program. It was delayed a year later again after the other services also decided to jump in a big way on the small UAS surveillance bandwagon. G2 Solutions writes:

In our opinion, if requirements inputs from the Marine Corps and Navy can be "normed" without too much extraneous input from the Army or Air Force then a December, 2008 or January 2009 RFP is feasible.  If more jointness is foisted upon STUAS/Tier II the system might do a number of things adequately at the expense of doing certain things superbly. In such a scenario the system might also be late to the party.

For more information about STUAS/Tier II, read my feature on the STUAS competition published in Flight International about five months ago.

Things didn't go so well the last time an aircraft designer stored hydrogen fuel above the passenger cabin. ("Oh, the humanity!")

But Boeing's engineers for the Blended Wing Body (BWB) apparently think it will work out differently this time. They've recently applied for a patent (posted on 25 September) for a specialized fuel tank to carry hydrogen gas aboard the futuristic BWB.


Not only does this bring to light Boeing's interest in hydrogen fuel for their next-generation airliner/tanker/airlifter/bomber concept, it also shows a very creative solution to the problem of carrying highly flammable hydrogen on board a commercial or military aircraft.

Boeing approaches this problem by designing a ring-shaped tank filling the perimeter of the blended fuselage body. The tank would be stored in the loft space above the passenger compartment.

Acting Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley has been very clear that he wants a contract awarded for combat search and rescue helicopters by the end of the year.

You may recall the CSAR-X acquisition has been in limbo since Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky successfully protested -- twice! -- the original contract awarded in November 2006 to Boeing for HH-47s. The US101 and HH-92, respectively, remain contenders in the third round of bidding.

We're still waiting on two key events to make Donley's wish come true: 1. the USAF must release a notice for final proposal revisions before next week at the latest, and 2. the Inspector General must release a report (likely next month) on whether the USAF improperly tinkered with requirements during the original award.

While we wait, here's a useful chart that appeared as part of a public presentation by Boeing last month. It neatly summarizes how each proposal was ranked by the USAF in the original competition, and how Boeing has acted since then to improve on its original scores. (Click on the image to view a larger frame.)

Cheers to uber-blog Gizmodo for picking up my F-35B animation video yesterday. The Gizmodo  link not only quadrupled my web hits overnight, it also attracted an interesting comment from one of the video's alleged creators, who writes:

The one depicted is the X-35 [the prototype that won the contract for the Joint Strike Fighter and became the F-35]. I don't know who posted it on YouTube, but the level of NDA's was substantial where we were not even allowed to showcase it on our demo reel.

I've also learned that the video was created by Northrop Grumman and distributed within the joint strike fighter program about 18 months ago.

Hard to believe that the video wasn't part of the program's public marketing campaign. I mean, what's the point of spending the money creating if you're not going to show it to anybody?

In case anybody missed it the first time, here it is again:

Blackswift is officially dead.

DARPA's reusable hypersonic test bed aiming for first flight in 2012 died by a congressional decision to annihilate the program's hefty $120 million price tag for 2009 alone. Passing the funding cuts became infinitely easier with the recent firing of former USAF chief of staff Michael Moseley and Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne, arguably the project's two strongest patrons.

I recommend reading Graham Warwick's thoughts about the subject at Aviation Week's Ares blog, but here's a snapshot.

I'm not sure what I think about this. Disappointed, certainly, but not surprised. Congress was skeptical of Blackswift's technical feasibility and operational utility. I always had the uncomfortable feeling the research agency was trying to run before it could walk - tackling the "DARPA-hard" challenge of reusable hypersonics before it had some of the enabling technologies firmly in place.

Let me also point out the last line of DARPA's official statement on Blackswift's demise. It's a quote by program manager Steven Walker carrying an oblique warning:

"It was a good idea and good ideas have a way of coming back and getting done eventually. Hopefully, the US will do it first, but there are no guarantees," Walker's statement said.

Hmm ... I smell an ever-popular allusion to Chinese/Indian/Russian competition.

Interestingly, we know two weeks ago that India and Russia launched a development program for a Mach 6 BrahMos cruise missile.

China has been less publicly obliging about its plans for hypersonic development. But allow me to point out the agenda for the most recent AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference, in which every reference to a specifically hypersonic technology program involved a presentation by a Chinese or Indian research team.

Inside the Air Force (subscribers only) reports today from the Air Armament Summit in Florida:

Air Combat Command Director of Requirements Maj. Gen. Mark Matthews said sixth-generation planes are on the service's radar.

"What our folks have already begun with are informal discussions [with] think tanks, with people in industry, about what their thoughts and their concepts are for the next generation of air dominance," he said. "What I've asked my people to go back and look at . . . is to look at other concepts for executing air dominance, not just fixed-wing aircraft."

Air dominance, the two-star said, could include cyber effects, directed energy or ground-based systems.

This is completely unrelated to KC-X and other competitors are involved, but I can't resist.

Boeing and Northrop Grumman are going at it again over the acquisition strategy for the US Army's next spy aircraft called the Aerial Common Sensor!

You may recall ACS from the fiasco of the original contract that was awarded to a Lockheed Martin/Embraer team in 2004. It was terminated in January 2006 after the army realized that a 20,000lb sensor system won't fit in a jet with a max payload of 14,000lb after all.

Now, Boeing and Northrop are vying for the follow-up deal for 38 business jet-sized aircraft packed with sensors and workstations. Lockheed and Raytheon are also considering bids, but it's not clear how serious they are.

I interviewed Boeing and Northrop executives about the competition at the Association of the US Army convention earlier this week, and discovered these companies are locked in yet another dispute about acquisition strategy.

A very risk-averse army acquisition team for ACS currently wants to downselect to one platform for the system development and demonstration phase. The army also is keeping tight control of the subsystems on the aircraft. The bidders are allowed to make only two technology choices: the aircraft and the ground moving target indicator radar. The army has pre-selected all of the other key subsystems, including the communications intelligence payload, data links and aircraft survivability equipment.

Boeing and Northrop are on opposite sides of this approach.

Northrop favors the army's acquisition strategy and has told the army that the industry as a whole is ready to compete on those terms.

Boeing wants the army to toss out this strategy. The company is urging the army to consider extending the competition into the early stages of the SDD phase and to allow the bidders the freedom to choose their own subsystems.

The issue is likely to be decided on October 23rd, when the Joint Requirements Oversight Council meets to consider the merits of the army's acquisition strategy.

Another interesting part about the ACS competition is the platform choice.

Boeing quietly announced at AUSA that it would offer the Gulfstream G550 business jet for ACS.

Northrop was partnered with Gulfstream in the original competition and lost with the G450. Now, Northrop is still considering its options and the leading candidates are the G550 and Bombardier Global Express XRS.

European-made helicopters are unlikely to be eligible for a possible recompetition of the US Army armed reconnaissance helicopter (ARH) contract.

Before Bell beat Boeing three years ago to win the original contract, AgustaWestland hoped to propose either the A109, A119, A129 or AW139 and Eurocopter wanted to offer AS550 or EC635.

Both European bidders were disqualified early in the original competition. Neither AgustaWestland nor Eurocopter could meet one of the army's key performance parameters: the ability to offload and fly two helicopters from a Lockheed Martin C-130 within 15 minutes.

Army aviation acquisition chief Paul Bogosian, speaking to me on the sidelines of the Association of the US Army (AUSA) convention earlier this week, affirmed that requirement remains a deal-breaker for the army if the contract is re-competed.

The BF-1 short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) variant is grounded for a few more months until its engine is fitted with redesigned turbine blades. It will be years before anyone sees the F-35B in operation. While we're waiting, at least we have this sophisticated animation posted anonymously on YouTube last week.

The US Air Force is developing a new glide-bomb with a high-powered microwave called the counter electronics munition (CEM). Until very recently, that's about all we knew about it. For example, Maj Gen Dave Eidsaune, commander of the Air Armament Center, used this slide to describe the CEM in a presentation on January 24 at the AIAA strategic and tactical missile systems conference.

Last week, the US Court of Federal Claims overturned a US Air Force contract award to Boeing for KC-135 program depot maintenance, but we didn't know why. The court finally released a redacted copy of the judge's decision yesterday, and the details don't do anything to improve the badly tarnished image of USAF acquisition.

Boeing won the contract partly by submitting a slightly lower-priced bid than Alabama Aircraft Industries, formerly Pemco Aeroplex.

That would seem entirely justified except for two problems: 1. Boeing dramatically lowered its price at the last minute, and 2. the USAF didn't bother to check if Boeing's new sums were feasible.

Most of Boeing's savings came from reducing its cost estimates for the latter years of the program. But known effects of aging aircraft mean that costs are likely to increase, not decrease, as more time passes.

The air force's defense? 1. It's RFP "actually assumes a non-aging fleet". 2. Both bidders understood that "out-year work packages changes would be negotiated" despite designating the contract as "fixed price".

The court's decision:

1. "The Air Force's price-realism analysis that relies upon a non-aging fleet for its conclusions is fatally flawed," the judge wrote.

2. "Rather than awarding a firm fixed price contract as envisioned, the air force's subsequent statements indicate that this 'fixed price' contract was subject to continued contractual renegotiations because of aging aircraft and was at best a firm fixed price contract only for the first year."

3. "Failing in the first instance to deal explicitly with the aging fleet issue in the RFP, as amended, and then seeking to sidestep the aging fleet issue in the price-realism analysis of Boeing's prevailing offer in this very close competition, renders the air force's award to Boeing unsustainable."

As a result, the court enjoined the air force from proceeding with the Boeing contract and ordered the air force to "resolicit the procurement and take the necessary steps in a new solicitation to address explicitly the role of an ever-aging KC-135 fleet on the PDM to be performed."

The future is already here  -- at least in video form. I used my cell phone camera to copy  video on display at Sikorsky's exhibit booth inside the gargantuan AUSA convention hall. Hope you enjoy.
 

I interviewed Paul Bogosian, head of army aviation acquisition, yesterday at the AUSA convention. We talked about why he thinks the army needs to start developing an all-new new helicopter with breakthrough advances for speed and range compared to today's technology.

Here's what Bogosian said about why a new helicopter is needed:

There have been a number of studies that have surfaced over the years that have pointed to the disparity of technology investment of rotory wing in the Department of Defense relative to TACAIR aviation. They go back to the Vietnam era and compare the forces relative to the number of incidents and losses and injuries. And you see where significant investments in fixed wing tactical fighters have put them at a much better posture relative to those issues than rotory wing aviation.

We still experience for the most part the same conditions that we experienced coming out of Vietnam. Now, we have more sophisticated platforms. [Current helicopters] have more power, they have more capability, but essentially they operate down in a dirty environment close to the fight and they haven't brought any great new technologies relative to speed and range.

We're always limited by the fact that conventional rotory wing technology, which is centered around the ability to hover and to have vertical flight, brings technical limitations to those other considerations of speed and range.

Now, one of the things that TACAIR has done is, by investing in the ability to fly faster and higher, they have brought a level of survivability to the force that they didn't have during the Vietnam era. We have not made that same transition yet in rotary wing aviation.

Army aviation is in pretty good shape (ignoring for a moment the recurring ARH-70 fiasco), but there's one glaring omission. No all-new military helicopter has entered the fleet since the early 1980s. The cancellation of the costly RAH-66 Comanche in 2004 allowed the army to revitalize its aviation branch, but it also meant that it was stuck with only existing airframes.

Paul Bogosian, chief of army aviation acquisition, told me in an interview yesterday that situation must change. Bogosian retires in a few months and his major focus is laying the groundwork that will allow the army to launch an all-new helicopter development program starting in the fiscal year 2012 budgeting cycle.

Joint Heavy Lift, an A400M-sized helicopter, is the army's first choice for a new-start program. Technologies necessary to support JHL would drive breakthroughs across the board. But going forward with JHL depends entirely on whether it is selected in 2010 by the Joint Staff for the Joint Future Theater Lift program, which aims to replace the C-130H fleet after 2020. The US Air Force would prefer a fixed-wing solution.

If JHL loses out for JFTL, the army's Plan B is to start developing the replacement for the AH-64 and UH-60 in FY2012. The so-called Joint Multi-Role (JMR) seeks to develop a common design sharing dynamic components and cockpit architecture for both attack and utility roles (think Huey/Cobra, but for the army).

A huge question is whether this is too little, too late. The history of military aircraft development strongly suggests a 20-year development period, so a new-start in 2012 isn't likely to be fielded until after 2030. And how will the army afford to develop an all-new aircraft while it continues to buy hundreds of existing manned and unmanned aircraft every year through the next decade?

In retrospect, killing the RAH-66 Comanche was almost too easy. It's only customer -- the US Army -- volunteered to cancel it. The program's industrial constituency nervously gambled that the army's promises to re-invest the Comanche budget would be heeded, which miraculously came true. There were no international industrial partners with a financial, political and strategic stake in the program. All it took to sign the Comanche's termination memo was a recommendation by the army's famous "council of colonels", which was approved by Secretary and chief of staff.

It's inevitable that the next administration will explore every option to fix the bulging US Air Force/US Navy fighter shortfall, but it's hard to imagine at this point that killing the F-35 will be seriously considered by decision-makers, even if it is advocated behind the scenes by the program's enemies.

Thanks to all who shared their thoughts about this critical issue yesterday. The comments really highlighted the political and bureaucratic issues with canceling the F-35, even by those who believed it was a good idea.

I can confidently guarantee that we'll hear more about this debate in the months ahead, and it will be useful I think for us to remember our initial reaction.

Within the past 10 days, we've learned that CSIS thinks the US military can't buy the aircraft it needs and, even if they could, RAND doubts those aircraft are up to the job.

So it's great timing this week for the annual convention by the Association of the US Army (AUSA) to roll into town.

The sweeping revitalization of army aviation over the past five years may offer an intriguing object lesson for fellow aviators in the air force, navy and marine corps.

Consider that only five years ago the army faced the same aircraft inventory challenges that are now so acute in the other services. With the distressing exception of scout helicopters, I think it's fair to say that the army procurement accounts for attack, cargo and utility helicopters are in great shape through at least 2015. 

The CSIS report mentioned no concerns about the overall state of army aviation.

What did the army do? It decided in 2004 -- by itself, mind you -- to cancel the RAH-66 Comanche, trading 121 Block 1 scout helicopters to buy at least 800 new aircraft and re-capitalize 1,400 aircraft already in the fleet.

The politics of defense procurement make it hard to cancel active programs. But it certainly helped that the two industrial partners on the RAH-66 program -- Boeing and Sikorsky -- stood to gain at least as much by its cancellation. The army re-invested the $14.6 billion to buy hundreds of Apaches, Chinooks and Black Hawks, not to mention scores of other manned and unmanned aircraft.

The obvious corollary for the air force and navy would be to cancel the F-35A and F-35C and plow the savings into buying oodles of new F-16s, F-15s and F/A-18s. The US Marine Corps has no choice: the F-35B is the only option to recapitalize the STOVL AV-8B.

I want to emphasize that I am not advocating this solution.

But I do want to raise the option as a question: What would you do?

Anthony Cordesman and Hans Ulrich Kaeser, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, today released a devastating critique of US airpower strategy. The F-22, F-35, KC-X, V-22 and VH-71 are studied, and the combined outlook is decidedly grim. Surprisingly, Cordesman and Kaeser do not blame incompetence by acquisition officers or defense contractors. Instead, they blame ... (wait for it ... ) Secretary of Defense Bob Gates! (PDF here)

Source: http://www.csis.org

The aerospace and defense sector will likely remain healthy for a long time despite the financial meltdown on Wall Street, according to Moody's six-month update released today.

But there are worries about the future of US defense spending, which is expected to rise to a post-World War II record of $710 billion in fiscal 2009. Here's Moody's:

"On the defense side, a new administration in Washington could take a tougher stance on spending as the weakening US economy and the federal response to the credit crunch potentially refocuses spending priorities. Even without these concerns, the blistering pace of growth in defense spending in recent years is not sustainable over the long run, and we continue to expect steadily reduced defense outlays beginning after next year."

The US Air Force tanker fiasco also sends a clear message to foreign suppliers eying the US market. Moody's says:

As a consequence of the decision, non-US companies might believe the US government is favoring Boeing to preserve American jobs. This would weaken incentives for these companies to pursue contracts with the US.

Overall, expect the US defense spending to begin contracting in 2010 after an 11-year cycle of sustained growth. But the downturn isn't likely to be extremely painful.

"Longer-term trends support strong defense outlays. Amid a continuing threat of global terrorism, lawmakers will not want to be perceived as soft on defense and homeland security. ... There will be a substantial need to rebuild field assets."

Brazil has been very clear that the F-X2 contract is not just about buying fighters. It's also about rebuilding the country's once-proud defense industry, which has severely atrophied since its heydey in the 1980s. And apparently they mean business. We learn in the English-language version of the downselect earlier this week that Brasilia's objective is to jump right up into the aerospace big leagues. Here's my slightly clean-up version of the translated announcement:

"The set of acquired knowledge and technological qualification in this acquisition will contribute to the conditions that will have Brazil produce or participate in the production of a Fifth Generation fighter in the medium to long term future."

Boeing is still a few weeks a way from proving whether an experimental laser cannon mounted on an AC-130 gunship actually works, but it need not worry.

The US Air Force secured the advanced tactical laser's short-term future earlier this week by signing a $30 million check, paying Boeing to participate in a three-year extended user evaluation. For the last five years, Boeing has been working on proving that a C-130-mounted laser is technically feasible. The three-tear evaluation is aimed at determining if the concept will be operationally practical. The contract award adds:

The ATL EUE is an effort to operate and evaluate the single residual systems developed during the ATL Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD). This system is a complex, highly-specialized and proprietary system that integrates a high-energy laser into an Air Force C-130 aircraft. The work required for the EUE contract includes the operation, maintenance, repair, and sustainment of the system over the duration of the effort (3 years).

The first test in September 2007 was mostly scratched by a software glitch unrelated to the engine. The second test in January 2008 was mostly a failure because of a fuel system malfunction, also unrelated to the engine.

For the HyFly program, it was the worst possible outcome: two tests and still no data to prove whether the Mach 6 dual combustion ramjet (DCR) technology works or doesn't.

Now, the Boeing/Aerojet team has successfully persuaded its DARPA/Office of Naval Research sponsors to pay $18.3 million to stage a third test, which represents the navy's hopes for achieving ultra-high speed flight. A date has not been set for the third test, but it is unlikely to occur before 2010.

Three of the six bidders who responded in July to Brazil's tender for at least 36 (and possibly 120) multi-role fighters will advance to the final round of the competition. The Brazilian Air Force announced the three teams advancing today (warning: Portugese language link -- use Google translator): Boeing F/A-18E/F, Dassault Rafale and Saab Gripen. Brazil rejected bids from Sukhoi, Eurofighter and Lockheed Martin.

Brazil wants a multi-role fighter to patrol the skies as much as monitor smugglers in the Amazon and guard the country's offshore oil rigs. But Brasilia also wants the multi-billion dollar contract to re-energize a long-dormant domestic defense industry through indigenous production and as much technology transfer as can be afforded, or, perhaps, allowed.

Given the USA's more restrictive technology transfer policies, Boeing should consider itself fortunate to remain in the competition, although the F/A-18E/F is certainly an acceptable aircraft for Brazil's requirements. Brazil's deep political, industrial and even cultural (the latter is my personal observation) links with France seem to give the Rafale the edge. Of course, if affordability becomes the overriding issue, Saab's very capable Gripen could surprise the competition.

The US Court of Federal Claims has not posted the decision on the Alabama Aircraft Industries case. But you can read the substance of the original complaint filed by Alabama Aircraft on July 25.

Alabama Aircraft Industries, formerly Pemco, has just announced that the KC-135 program depot maintenance contract has been overturned by the US Court of Federal Claims. Alabama Aircraft has been fighting the US Air Force ever since Boeing won the contract more than a year ago. The company lost its protest to the Government Accountability Office, but appealed to the US court. They've apparently won their case. According to Alabama Aircraft, the court has stated: "The Air Force must resolicit the procurement and take the necessary steps in a new solicitation to address explicitly the role of an ever-aging KC-135 fleet."

This is obviously another huge blow to the USAF acquisition and tanker communities, and possibly a stunning victory for Alabama Aircraft's ongoing David vs Goliath battle over the PDM contract.

More to follow as the story develops ...