January 2009 Archives

Question: How many jobs will Lockheed Martin cut if the F-22 production closes this year?

Answer: Probably none. Maybe a few.

That's not my opinion. That's what Ralph Heath, president of Lockheed's aeronautics division, said as recently as November 20. Heath spoke to market analysts at the Credit Suisse Group Aerospace & Defense Conference in New York. Asked whether F-22 assets could be redeployed to support the F-35 ramp-up, here's what Heath said:

It's -- the production folks that probably will become displaced when we're at the end of the production line in Marietta, because we've had the good fortune or we were reaping the dividends of the hard work that we've put in place with the C-130, we actually have a requirement for ramping up for C-130 production. So, those folks can be redeployed there.

 

In a similar vein for C-5, about a year from now we'll be marching in the ramp-up for full production on the re-engining program and we'll have a need for employees there as well.

 

A third of the F-22 is built in Fort Worth. And again, as we ramp up for F-35, we have the need already for deploying the manufacturing people there as well.

 

So, if you go back to the portfolio balance, it's not exactly perfect but we're probably as good as we've ever been and where you'd want to be in terms of the balance and different points with the lifecycle of the portfolio of programs that we have.

Few documents illustrate the plight of the US Air Force's aging aircraft problem better than this new report today by the Government Accountability Office.  GAO's auditors focused on the future of the air superiority alert mission, a legacy of 9/11 that is amazingly still neglected. But the report also implicitly reveals the extent of the looming "fighter gap" in ways I haven't seen before. Consider this one paragraph (see page 28).

The remaining F-15s returned to service by spring 2008, but Air Combat Command officials told us that in light of the accident and subsequent grounding they are concerned about the number of F-15s that will be able to remain in service and meet the Air Force's operational needs up to their scheduled retirement date in 2025. When we discussed this issue during the exit conference of our review, Air Force and NGB/ANG officials acknowledged that the end of the F-15s' useful service lives could occur earlier than 2025 if the aircraft are increasingly used for overseas deployments or other missions. During discussions for the fiscal year 2010 programming cycle, the Air Force sought approval from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to retire 137 F-15s and 177 F-16s earlier than originally planned. Depending on when and where the Air Force retires these F-15s, removing them from service early could further affect the number of aircraft that will be available for units performing ASA operations. In comments on a draft of this report, DOD indicated that extending the service life of its F-15 and F-16 aircraft is also an option; however, the Air Force has yet to determine the extent to which such actions are viable.

 

 

It's a rough day to be an aerospace reporter. The juiciest story of the decade has been lost. EADS confirms that it will not compete for the Air Force One replacement contract. Read Flight's news story. Here is the statement from EADS North America:

"In 2007 at the USAF's request, EADS North America provided technical information and answered questions regarding several of our widebody commercial aircraft as the service conducted its Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) to recapitalize the current fleet of presidential aircraft.

"EADS North America's strategy for growth in the US is based on bringing value to the US warfighter; making industrial investments in the US and insourcing high technology defense and aerospace jobs. After careful review, we've determined that participation in the AF-1 program will not help us meet these business objectives."

"Though the company will not respond to this RFI, we remain focused on once again winning the KC-X competition with Northrop Grumman, delivering the UH-72A LUH to the US Army and meeting the needs of our US defense and homeland security customers.

"We reiterate our strong commitment to the US Department of Defense and to supporting the warfighter with our products and services."

Remember in September when the US Air Force dispatched F-15s to escort a Tu-160 Black Jack on a 13-hour flight from Russia to Caracas? (See video below.)

Many have reported that the infamous sortie demonstrated a resurgence of a re-empowered Russian Air Force.

But Secretary of Defense Bob Gates doesn't buy it. Not only did he tell the Senate Armed Services Committee this morning that "at $40 oil the Russian navy doesn't bother me very much".

He also dismissed the Tu-160's long-distance flight to Venezuela, one of America's least-favored nations at the moment.

Joked Gates: "When they complained about our escorting their Black Jack bombers I just wanted to say that we just wanted to be there for search and rescue if they needed it."

Beyond visual range (BVR) will remain the raging controversy in air combat until a definitive, modern air war -- which nobody wants -- proves which side is correct.

The Air Power Australia group, which defiantly wears its pro-F-22/anti-F-35 bias on its sleeve, make a strong case today against BVR, breaking down the odds of failure at each step in the BVR kill-chain.

1. Active missile confirmed on launch rail -- 0.1% (chance of failure)
2. Search and track radar jammed -- 5%
3. Launch or missile failure -- 5%
4. Guidance link jammed -- 3%
5. Seeker head jammed or diverted -- 30%
6. Chaff or decoys seduce the seeker -- 5%
7. Seeker chooses towed decoy -- 5%
8. Aircraft out-manuevers missile -- 40%
9. Fuse or warhead failure -- 2%

PROBABILITY OF A BVR MISSILE KILL: 17.1%

The question is simple: Even if it is technically possible to destroy an opponent's aircraft beyond a pilot's visual range, is it now or will it ever become tactically feasible?

Pierre Sprey, a co-father of the A-10 and F-16, adamantly says no. The fog of war and the complexity of air combat dictates that pilots must wait until their targets come within visual range before they can be shut down. Even if they dare to fire, the chances of a BVR missile kill are too small for the strategy to work.

But the US Air Force corporately says yes, a sentiment echoed by the makers of the F-35 Lightning II, which its supporters will likely concede is optimized for the BVR fight.

To be sure, since 1991, the USAF has fired 13 AMRAAMs to achieve six BVR kills, a 45% success rate, according to this Rand air power study. But Rand's analysts note that these shots have come against inferior or unsuspecting opponents, and offer no confidence that an engagement with modern Su-30s would bear similar results.

Skunk Works designed the Stalker UAV in 2006 for a classified customer (read more). Since then, we haven't heard a lot about it. Thankfully, a promo video was posted on YouTube yesterday.

(Spoiler alert: In the end, the swarthy Arab-looking guys with the car bomb get caught. Not clear why special forces are deployed in Death Valley.)
 

Air Force magazine has helpfully posted the briefing slides from Friday's press conference on the Project Liberty program.

DOWNLOAD BRIEFING (Hit "Ctrl + right-click" to go to link)

Project Liberty is acquiring 37 Hawker Beechcraft C-37 King Air 350/ERs equipped with MX-15 camera turret balls.

The aircraft are part of a rising trend of dispatching manned aircraft to augment the unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) performing the persistent intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) mission. The army has already deployed the C-23 Constant Hawk and the marines are operating the manned Angel Fire system in Iraq.

TDL's pals at Inside the Air Force (subscriber-only) got the scoop of the week, in my opinion. Boeing is apparently pitching a new -- and really improved -- version of the OV-10 Bronco for the counter-insurgency mission.

 

BOEING LOOKING TO GET INTO LIGHT-ATTACK PLANE MARKET WITH NEW OV-10

 

As the Air Force contemplates a requirement for a light-attack plane, Boeing has internally put together plans to build a souped-up modernized version of the Vietnam-era OV-10 Bronco, Inside the Air Force has learned.

 

While the twin-engine plane would maintain much of its 1960s-vintage rugged external design, the 21st Century edition would feature a computerized cockpit, intelligence sensors and smart-bomb-dropping capabilities, according to an OV-10(X) product card obtained by ITAF. The Chicago defense-giant has quietly been circulating plans at military-sponsored events across the country that detail how the company could rebuild and modernize the Bronco, according to Pentagon and industry officials.

 

I immediately called Jim "Grump" Hodgson, president of the OV-10 Bronco Association. About three years ago, senior US military officials contacted Hodgson's group, asking about the availability of OV-10s to help solve the improvised explosive device problem in Iraq.

 

Unfortunately, Hodgson couldn't give them good news. Only a few OV-10s were left in the boneyard, and most of the rest were in active combat service in Colombia, Indonesia, Philippines and Venezuela.

 

Hodgson said several members of his group are aware of new Boeing's plans for the OV-10. Interest is growing internationally in restarting production. The US Air Force also might consider it, but, as the ITAF story reports, it would compete for the role agains the T-6B Texan II, AT-67 Dragon and EMB-314 Super Tucano.

 

The sudden appeal of the old OV-10 -- even in an age dominated by Predator drones -- doesn't surprise Hodgson.

 

"It doesn't make any different how good your UAV is," he said. "Nothing replaces a couple of eyeballs on a head that moves around." 

My philosophy is simple: If you're going to spend a couple hundred million of taxpayer dollars to buy something, at least give it a cool name.

I'm sorry, but the "wide area airborne surveillance" (WAAS) sensor did not cut it. The Sierra Nevada pod is expected to revolutionize the surveillance mission when it arrives in Iraq in 2010 as a pod on the MQ-9 Reaper (also a cool name), but the name was terrible.

Pronouncing "WAAS" makes the speaker sound like the screaming baby that always sits behind you on a transatlantic flight.

So it was a relief this morning when I was informed by Brig Gen Blair Hansen that WAAS now has a nickname -- the aforementioned "Gorgon Stare".

You can Google the term to understand the reference, or click on this link, but here's a graphical hint.

How do you make a CH-47 Chinook cruise at 250-knots? Vectored thrusters! 

Piasecki Aircraft, the Chinook's legacy inventor, has filed a patent application for this unusual Chinook configuration.



Two ducted fans, with differential pitch propellers and horizontal vanes, are attached to each side of the CH-47 fuselage. Thrust generated by the fans can be vectored horizontally (to boost speed) or vertically (to increase lift).
 

Flight's European editor Niall O'Keefe confirmed yesterday that EADS North America will offer an armed version of the UH-72 light utility helicopter (LUH) for the armed reconnaissance helicopter contract.

The ARH-72, a twin-engined version of the Eurocopter EC145, will likely battle the single-engine Boeing AH-6S Phoenix for the potentially $6 billion contract.

Most interestingly, as Niall reports, EADS NA intends to offer the ARH-72 as the prime contractor, and select a US-based partner to integrate the mission system. Niall quotes Eurocopter CEO Lutz Bertling:

Bertling says a twin-engined helicopter would be "far better suited to [the] requirement" than a single-engined design. As it is already in service with the US Army, the LUH-based solution would offer advantages in logistics and fleet commonality, and would score highly on the "past performance" criterion, he adds. The service took delivery of its 50th UH-72 in December. 

Lockheed Martin's annual earnings statement today contains some cryptic remarks about the F-22 program.

The bamboozling statement -- strangely repeated twice in the same paragraph -- seems to express something negative. The context of the statement is the fact that operating profit at the company's aeronautics division dropped in 2008. This is one of the reasons for that decline:

In Combat Aircraft, the decrease mainly was due to lower volume and the decline in 2008 of the amount of favorable inception-to-date performance adjustments recognized on the F-22 program, which more than offset improved performance on F-16 programs.

If I had to guess, I'd say this suggests that the F-22 assembly line made more mistakes last year than in 2007, or perhaps did not improve as expected on the learning curve. But I'm really not sure.

Anybody got any theories?

The US Air Force is now seeking suppliers for a "counter ultra light aircraft/paratrooper system" (CULAPS, for short). According to the solicitation, here's the basic idea:

The CULAPS system is envisaged as a lightweight net aimed and fired from the ground that envelopes the target and thereby removes the target's lift bringing it to the ground. The system should be lightweight (man/vehicle portable) and have an effective vertical range of greater than 500 feet. An attribute of the system should include the potential for linking the firing system to a sensor system for automated remote operation.

If you are an interested supplier -- or if you are, say, Spiderman -- you have until 20 February to submit your response.

BAE Systems has released new video showing their new hostile fire indicator (HFI) in action. An AK-47 is fired as a HFI-equipped MD Helicopters MD520 approaches within a few hundred yards. It's not possible from the video to verify the results, but BAE claims the demonstration was a success.

The US Army has been seeking a working HFI system since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. So far, no feasible option has emerged -- at least in the public domain.

The deadline for submitting bids in the third round of the CSAR-X competition passed today in awkward silence. It's only a $15 billion contract award now entering source selection, yet it was almost ignored.

But maybe the silence is understandable. No one is sure if the new administration will allow the US Air Force to award a contract in the spring (or second quarter), as currently planned. It has been reported that CSAR-X could even be indefinitely delayed, in order for the USAF to afford the expense of another two or three years of F-22 production.

The fact remains the competition is still very alive. The three competitors -- the Boeing HH-47, Lockheed Martin/AgustaWestland US101, Sikorsky HH-92 -- each desperately want to win this contract.

The best assessment of the competition comes from a Boeing presentation, dated September 2008. It shows the precise status of each of the bidders at the end of the first round of bidding. The competition will likely be decided by how each competitor corrects the flaws in their opening proposals.

When does a word of praise for the F-22 imply a latent critique of the F-35?

Consider the following statements by Senator Saxby Chambliss. It's from a press release on 16 January. Forty-four senators have signed a letter urging President Barack Obama  to continue F-22 production.

Some have suggested filling the remaining F-22 requirement with other aircraft, like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.  However, the F-35 is designed for multi-role strike missions and not optimized for the air dominance missions of the F-22.

Fair point. The next paragraph is where it gets interesting.

Further, we must not overlook the fact that our potential adversaries are increasing their air combat capabilities both in terms of technology and numbers of aircraft.  Several have announced that they are developing stealthy, twin-engine, high-altitude, fifth generation fighters that will reach production within the next five to ten years.   Additionally, sophisticated and highly lethal air defense systems such as the SA-20, and S-300/400 are proliferating worldwide resulting in the possible requirement to achieve air dominance in multiple theaters simultaneously.

Extending the logic, a perhaps unstated assumption is the F-35 can't stand-up to the next generation of air- or ground-based threats, but the F-22 can. Or is it?

Read a certain way, Chambliss's letter in defense of the F-22 is not logically far removed from the outspoken critiques of the F-35 by the Air Power Australia crowd.

Read the full letter on the jump.

Hat tip to my colleague and fellow journo-blogger Jon Ostrower for getting an exclusive promo clip of President-elect Barack Obama's first ride aboard the C-32 (a modified Boeing 757).

Click here to watch video.

I've actually had the pleasure of flying this jet to Europe with then-Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen. I recommend the halibut -- but I'm sure Obama wasn't disappointed with the cheeseburger.

(That was a weird trip, by the way. To keep up appearances, Cohen was required to attend the change-of-command ceremonies for Gen Wesley Clark, the victor of Serbia whom Cohen had essentially fired. That dynamic made for several awkward moments with Cohen's traveling press pool.)

The Russian defence ministry announced this week it will buy the 28 MiG-29 SMT and UBT fighters originally sold to Algeria, completing, a bizarre 15-year circle for those previously homeless jets.

In 2007, Algeria forced Russia to take back the first 15 MiG-29s after determining the aircraft were duds.

My source in Moscow tells me the same batch of aircraft was originally built in the early 1990s, but proved unable to find a buyer -- even at $5 million per aircraft.

Russia finally closed the deal with Algeria by promising to deliver new-build aircraft, but instead gave them the homeless MiG-29s with upgraded radar and avionics.

Now, Russia's MOD has reportedly agreed to buy the aircraft for $23 million a copy -- cheap by fourth-generation fighter standards, but insanely marked up since the early 1990s.

It seems the most closely guarded secret in the F-35 program has been, strangely enough, the order breakdown between the US Navy and US Marine Corps. The combined purchase is 680 aircraft.

But the order split between the USMC's F-35B and the USN's F-35C has remained a mystery. I've heard suggestions of a roughly 50/50 split, but nothing specific.

This morning's Federal Register -- as spotted by my colleague John Croft -- finally solves the mystery.

The USMC submitted two environmental impact statements, as federal law requires, for plans to base F-35Bs on the east coast and west coast. The statements contain the first official breakdown of the F-35 order count. Here it is:

East Coast: 10 active duty squadrons, one reserve squadron of up to 16 aircraft each. Plus, two training squadrons of 20 aircraft each. Total number: 216.

West Coast: 10 active duty squadrons, one reserve squadron of up to 16 aircraft each. One operational evaluation unit of six aircraft. Total number: 182.

(Note: Both totals add up to 10 fewer aircraft than the maximum. I can't explain why.)

That adds up to a USMC planned order for 398 aircraft. Deductively, the USN's order count would amount to 282 aircraft.

Bell Helicopter must have some extra time on their hands. Buried in a nearly 8-minute promo about the Quad Tiltrotor (QTR) concept is this stunning graphic. Look for it at the 7:43 mark.

The F-35s prowess has been taking a beating, especially on this blog. Rand's "baby seals" report in September clubbed the F-35 as the "can't turn, can't climb and can't run" fighter. Even the infamous YouTube video of the US Air Force officer describing Red Flag contained an implied insult of the F-22's kid brother.

Of course, it's not easy to balance the commentary when Lockheed Martin declines to publicly defend the F-35's dogfighting skills, presumably out of concern that a good word for the F-35 could undermine the case to save the F-22.

But here's a new analysis by Heritage Foundation analyst Ariel Cohen, which ranks the F-35 as a clear winner against even the MiG-35 and Su-35.

Stealth is a major discriminator between a 5G fighter like the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter and "Gen 4 plus plus" competitors like the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-35 Fulcrum and the Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker that are essentially modernizations of their respective progenitors, the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29 and the Sukhoi Su-27. No operational Soviet or Russian stealth aircraft has ever been reported to have entered service.

A U.S. analyst who requested anonymity said that while the Russians have some good specific system technologies, their ability to effectively integrate them often lags behind that of the West, and the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter takes integration of off-board intelligence to a step well beyond proven Russian capabilities.

 

Northrop Grumman wanted to commemorate the B-2's 20th anniversary with something special and flashy. So they commissioned the Orange County Choppers to design and produce the "B-2 Stealth Bike". [Ed: Insert RCS, budget overrun or moistened pitot tube joke here.]

I'll let the photos speak for themselves.

Addison Schonland, of Innovation Analysis Group, invited me on a podcast today to discuss the Air Force One replacement story.

The other panelist is Ronald Kuhlmann, Unisys vice president of transportation. We talked about the likelihood of a Boeing vs. Airbus showdown, the possibility of sole-sourcing the aircraft to Boeing and competing the integration work, and the opportunity for the next president to make an environmental statement with his/her choice of a new Air Force One.

Listen to the full podcast

Meanwhile, the story about the USAF's replacement plans -- first reported on this blog -- has had a decent run. There have been follow-up reports by Dow Jones, Fox News and a USA Today blog. Market analyst Paul Nisbet at JSA Research contributes this insight:

"A few years ago, I would have thought it very, very unlikely that Airbus could win a bid for Air Force One. But, given what's happened with the tankers, it could be conceivable that the Air Force would give Boeing the new tanker contract, and then offer Air Force One as a sop to Airbus," Nisbet said.

In fact, he said, the A380, which is larger than the biggest 747 model now available, could be a good choice for the presidential plane.

But leave it to Airbus to spoil the party. Here's Airbus spokeswoman Mary Anne Greczyn:

"While Airbus would love to see one of its family members become the new Air Force One, historically it is unlikely any proposal of ours would be very seriously considered."

West Point professor emeritus Don Snider today unveiled his plan for fixing the problem of retired generals' ethics, most recently illustrated by the New York Times take-down of (fellow West Point prof) retired Gen Barry McCaffrey.

Snider writes in the Strategic Studies Institute's latest update:

Can any retired three- or four-star general be a West Point professor upholding the standards of academic integrity; a corporate advocate advancing through personal contacts the fortunes of defense contractors; an independent observer and objective reporter of current events for major news corporations; and, simultaneously, a moral exemplar for the Army Profession? The answer is a qualified yes; i.e., only if there is no possible perception of conflicts of interest.

[The chief of staff of the army] should quickly establish under the auspices of the Profession an electronic registry of retired three- and four-star generals that details the affiliations of each officer, both with for-profit and not-for-profit entities. To rightly restore the moral obligations over the legal, the registry would be voluntary. Each retired officer would voluntarily enter their own affiliations and keep them current. Most importantly, the registry would be open to the public so that any interested person could see at any time, under the auspices of the Profession, the ties each individual retired general has and has voluntarily offered to the public. Perceptions of conflicts of interest can best be avoided if all affiliations are well-known in advance of commitments and contracts.

Read Snider's full commentary here.

The Iraqi Air Force has operated since 2003 with a motley mix of small aircraft, but nary a bullet, bomb or missile.

According to the latest quarterly report released today by the US military, that situation may have already changed.

The IqAF re-acquires the ability to strike targets on the ground in "early 2009" with the delivery of a first batch of 20 AGM-114 Hellfire missiles. The armament will likely be fired from one of 24 Bell 407 armed reconnaissance helicopters now under contract. (See page 51)

It's a major step in the re-emergence of the IqAF's air power capability. The government has also made noises about acquiring a range of tactical fighters, including Super Tucano turboprops, T-38 advanced jet trainers and F-16s.

Goodrich today named its new supplier for advanced landing gear coatings for the F-35. The designated supplier is (drum-roll): the US Air Force, which dizzyingly becomes the F-35's chief customer, chief tester and downstream supply chain flunky, all in one! (Who wants to be THAT Goodrich supply chain manager: "USAF, we're going to have squeeze you on your price this year to cover our costs ... -- what do you mean I'm fired?")

According to Mike Brand, president, Goodrich Landing Gear, "In today's market, commercial and military platforms compete for limited capacity on critical process technologies. By working with the Air Force, Goodrich is able to provide our customer a high quality, environmentally-friendly product at a price and production rate that is competitive with the commercial marketplace. In addition, we have a unique opportunity to engage our customer early in the F-35 program's life cycle; they can gain experience with the landing gear design and technology well in advance of traditional depot maintenance and overhaul activities as the product is fielded."

Read the Goodrich press release.

Australian member of parliament (MP) Dennis Jensen has challenged Air Vice Marshall John Harvey to a public debate about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Jensen's gesture came after a week of sparring with Marshall over the F-35's capabilities in dueling press releases.

The anti-F-35 Jensen re-opened the debate by publishing a commentary on 7 January, attacking the viability of all three fundamental JSF selling points: price, stealth and networking.

In short, the JSF is an expensive aircraft, with very limited aerodynamic performance compared to legacy fighters, let alone other advanced fighters. The stealthiness of the aircraft has been shown, with hard numbers, to be poor compared to real stealth aircraft, and its much vaunted networking capability further degrades this. (Read full commentary)

The next day, Harvey published a two-page rebuttal on the Defence Materiel Organization's web site.

Dr Jensen makes a large number of incorrect judgments about the capability and cost of the JSF. It is the JSF's combination of stealth, advanced situation awareness and affordability that make it so attractive to the nine JSF partner nations and many other nations that are looking to acquire it. (Read full rebuttal)

That provoked a re-rebuttal from Jensen on Friday (continue reading), as well as an invitation to the aforementioned public debate about Australia's planned $100 billion investment in F-35 program.

Regardless of the specific points made by either side, there is perhaps no country in the 11-nation partnership enjoying such a public and informed debate about its F-35 investment.

The US Air Force yesterday posted the following request for information on the Federal Business Opportunities web site.

Let the 747-8I versus A380 debate commence!

The United States Air Force is conducting market research to identify potential sources that possess the expertise, capabilities, and experience to meet the requirements of the next generation Presidential fixed-wing aircraft. The current VC-25 Air Force One, based on the 747-200 airframe, was purchased in 1987 and delivered in 1990 with a 30 year design life. As 747-200s have been retired from airline service, parts and maintenance are becoming increasingly expensive. The Air Force conducted an Analysis of Alternatives to examine if it would be more cost effective to maintain the current Air Force One, or to buy a new aircraft. Given the diminishing parts supplier base, increasing maintenance time, and system upgrades that would be necessary to meet future air traffic control requirements, it was found that replacing the VC-25 was the most cost effective option.

The PAR aircraft will be a new-build, commercial derivative, wide-body aircraft, uniquely modified to meet the current and projected requirements for the worldwide transportation of the Office of the President. Modifications regarding passenger communications, information systems, interior work & rest environment, and aerial refueling must be accomplished before delivery of the aircraft. The delivery of the first operationally capable aircraft is required in FY17, with delivery of the second and third aircraft in FY19 and FY21, respectively. The PAR aircraft must maintain the highest possible mission capable rate.

The PAR aircraft will provide the President of the United States, staff, and guests with safe and reliable air transportation with the appropriate level of security and communications capability. Mission communications must provide secure, interoperable command, control, and communications, using net-centric architectures.

The interior must provide a work and rest environment suitable for the President, guests, and traveling staff. The interior configuration must provide the President with ample work and conference areas (including sleeping, lavatory, shower, and dressing areas). The interior must be accessible to the physically impaired. The interior must be configured with galleys that provide the aircrew with the capability to prepare, serve, and store food and beverages. It must also provide for housekeeping and waste disposal.

The modified aircraft will be Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certified, and will meet projected aviation requirements to conduct worldwide flight operations in all civil and military airspace as defined by the FAA, International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), and Department of Defense (DOD).

Boeing's Little Bird design team is based in Mesa, a suburb of Phoenix, Arizona. The aircraft's chances for winning the US Army's armed reconnaissance helicopter contract have also been revived, Phoenix-like, thanks to the termination in October of the Bell Helicopter ARH-70 contract.

So when Boeing needed a name for its most likely offering for the ARH order, guess what they picked?

Tomorrow, Boeing will introduce the AH-6S Phoenix at the AUSA Army Aviation conference in Arlington, Va. The "S" is for "stretched".

The aircraft would include:

• AH-64 Block III-derived technologies, such as composite main rotor blade and cockpit suite
• 15-inch plug, useful for extracting downed air crew
• a "pointy" nose, for storing avionics boxes in the nose thereby making the cabin more roomy
• Uprated Rolls-Royce Model 250-CE30 engines and improved tail rotor
• Common sensor payload

I'll post a picture as soon as I can get one.

Aerosonde today announced the first flight of the Mark 5 variant of its eponymous unmanned aerial vehicle -- surprising, considering we weren't aware such an aircraft existed, much less has already flown.

The Mark 5 is AAI/Aerosonde's surprise new candidate for the small tactical unmanned aircraft system (STUAS)/Tier II contract, a pending US Navy/US Marine Corps order for hundreds of new aircraft. Until now, the Aerosonde Mark 4 has been the team's candidate for the STUAS/Tier II contract.

Aerosonde has not yet released a photo or any performance data about the new aircraft, but I'll keep you posted if that changes.

From the press release, we know a few things about the Mark 5, including:

• It has been under development for two years
• Flight tests began after the "services confirmed their requirements" for STUAS/Tier II
• The aircraft's configuration is designed to "comply with the objectives of these programs"
  

Boeing plans to hold a press conference tomorrow about reports that India has signed a $2.1 billion deal to buy eight P-8I maritime patrol aircraft.

Until then, here's a snippet from one of the better articles in the Indian press this morning about the deal.

The UPA government has quietly gone ahead and signed the biggest-ever defence deal with US: a $2.1 billion contract for eight Boeing P-8I long-range maritime reconnaissance (LRMR) aircraft for Navy.

TOI had reported on December 27 that the huge deal was finally on the verge of being inked after protracted negotiations and clearance from the Cabinet Committee on Security.

The actual signing took place on January 1, with defence ministry's joint secretary and acquisitions manager (maritime systems) Preeti Sudan and Boeing integrated defence systems vice-president and country head Vivek Lall signing the contract, sources said.

But, strangely enough, the defence ministry is keeping the deal under wraps. Incidentally, the previous NDA regime had also signed a flurry of mega defence deals -- like the $1.5 billion one for Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov and $1.1 billion one for three Israeli 'Phalcon' AWACS (airborne warning and control systems) -- in the run-up to the April-May 2004 general elections.

Sources said the P-8I contract was "a direct commercial agreement with Boeing", with "some issues of end-use verification yet to be fully sorted out" with the US government.

The WebInkNow blog has uncovered the US Air Force's official rules of engagement for responding to blogs. It seems like reasonable guidance to any person or organization dealing with the blogosphere. Is it just me, or do each of titles in the red boxes sound like great call signs for pilots?

You can download Flight International's latest World Air Forces directory here, or browse through the pages below.

P.S.: Happy New Year!