The Boeing P-8A Poseidon has secretly acquired a new role for the US Navy that will transform the maritime patrol aircraft into a rival of the US Air Force's Northrop Grumman E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS).
Details of the mission surfaced today in a press release issued by Raytheon, which announced receiving a multi-year contract to develop an advanced new radar for the P-8A programme.
According to Raytheon, the advanced airborne sensor (AAS) will become a successor to the littoral surveillance radar system (LSRS), which is operational today on a small subset of the Lockheed P-3C fleet.


As a sensor that can track moving targets on the ground, the canoe-pod LSRS allowed some P-3Cs to shift into the overland surveillance mission, performing a role normally reserved for the USAF's E-8C fleet.
Until the Raytheon announcement, USN officials had never proposed the idea of installing an LSRS-type sensor on the P-8A fleet. Rather, the USN had maintained that the P-8A fleet would be focused on the USN's core maritime patrol mission, and especially dedicated to the anti-submarine warfare threat.
"We will be ready with intelligent technology when the Poseidon takes its place as the Navy's ISR capability in the fleet," said Capt Scott Anderson, AAS and LSRS programme manager, who was quoted in the Raytheon press release.
Neither Raytheon, Boeing nor USN officials were available to comment on the press release today.
The existence of the mechanically-scanned LSRS sensor only became known in 2006, when Boeing announced the system had been used to track moving ground targets and cue a strike by the standoff land attack missile - expanded response (SLAM-ER). Last year, Raytheon also revealed that the LSRS could track moving targets making a 90-degree turn.
The USN plans to buy 117 P-8As to partly replace the P-3C fleet. Meanwhile, Northrop Grumman is building another 48-68 RQ-4N broad area maritime surveillance (BAMS) aircraft to complete the P-3C replacement.
Boeing formally rolled out the P-8A in a ceremony on 30 July in Renton, Washington, which occurred more than two months after the programme achieved first flight. Boeing also received a new contract on 30 July to start building three more test aircraft, joining five more already on contract.

[UPDATE: Report states the pilot did not NOT experience a "total G-LOC", but suffered a condition called "almost G-LOC". Basically, the pilot struggled to maintain consciousness trying to recover from high-G maneuver, but realized too late -- at about 5,000ft above the ground -- that recovery was impossible. The pilot ejected 165kts above minimum safe airspeed. The pilot, Lockheed employee David Cooley, was killed by the force of the windblast after ejection.]

The US Air Force has issued a request for information to identify sources that can supply 100 new fighters to perform light attack and armed reconnaissance roles.

Air Combat Command released a request for information on July 27 that calls for first aircraft deliveries to start in Fiscal 2012 and the first operational squadron to activate a year later.

The requirements call for a two-seat turboprop capable of flying up to 30,000ft and equipped with zero-altitude/zero-airspeed ejection seats, full motion video camera, data link, infrared suppressor, radar warning receiver and armored cockpit. Weapons must include a gun, two 500-lb bombs, 2.75-inch rockets and rail-launched munitions.

The known for competitors for the requirement include the Air Tractor AT-802U, Embraer Super Tucano, Hawker Beechcraft AT-6B Texan II and Pilatus PC-9.

Michel Merluzeau, managing partner at G2 Global Solutions, wrote earlier this week new demand for counter-insurgency (COIN) aircraft could revive interest in the Piper PA-48 Enforcer (pictured above). The PA-48 is an updated version of the World War II-era North American P-51 Mustang, which the USAF evaluated in the early 1970s for a possible COIN role. One potential issue is the PA-48 would not meet the USAF's requirement for a two-seat fighter.  


The light attack/armed reconnaissance fleet, if finally approved, would join a growing COIN air force within an air force. The USAF has already purchased 37 Hawker Beechcraft MC-12Ws to serve as manned intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, filling a role previously served almost exclusively by unmanned aircraft systems.

The USAF also released another RFI earlier this week for as many as 60 light mobility aircraft (LiMA) to airlift up to six passengers or small loads of cargo from austere or unimproved surfaces.

(h/t: Thanks, Otto!)

The LiMA requirement has emerged along several new types of aircraft expected to play different roles in the irregular warfare mission. The USAF is buying 37 MC-12 Libertys, modified King Air 350s, to serve as manned intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft.

Gen Norton Schwartz, USAF chief of staff, has said the USAF "probably" needs a turboprop-powered, light strike fighter that can also be used as a trainer.

In testimony to Congress in June, Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley said the demand for such irregular warfare aircraft is being driven by the needs of Iraqi and Afghan forces.

"We think having a capability like this in the United States makes us better teachers of -- for potential partners who are not going to be buying JSFs, C-17s and sort of the F-35s, the high-end capabilities that we will produce," Donley said.

In the upcoming quadrennial defense review, Seretary of Defense Robert Gates has revealed plans to dedicate 10% of the US military's resources to irregular warfare needs.

FORT WORTH, Texas -- The Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter faces a series of multi-billion dollar annual cost overruns if the US Department of Defense continues a shift to a more conservative budgeting stance.

The Pentagon's fiscal year 2010 budget request for the F-35 contains a hidden cost overrun worth $480 million. The extra money was not requested to cover a specific cost growth, but instead what programme officials consider to be an overly cautious budget estimate reported by a relatively new internal auditing group called the Joint Estimating Team (JET), says Dan Crowley, Lockheed's executive vice-president and general manager for the F-35.

The Obama administration has called for an updated JET analysis to inform the FY2011 budgeting process, and Crowley fears that a similarly conservative approach to estimating development and production costs could lead to dramatic new overruns.

"We think the government is smart to pay out [cost] growth and [additional] schedule as we need it, rather than adopt some two-year, multi-billion dollar, conservative position," says Crowley, speaking on the sidelines of a roll-out ceremony for the US Navy's first F-35C at Fort Worth, Texas on 28 July. "It's like giving up before you even have a chance to demonstrate what you can do."

The issue began to develop after separate estimating teams formed by the US Air Force and USN were consolidated into a single group to analyze the F-35's cost structure, Crowley says.

The JET's first report last year identified four areas where the F-35's programme estimates are overly optimistic, including software coding, engineering staff reductions, the pace of flight tests and manufacturing schedule.

In response, Crowley says that the programme can show progress on each area except the flight-test phase, which has completed only 2% of its planned 5,000 sorties. Lockheed will not be able to offer a reliable estimate for the flight-test phase until its surpasses the 10% mark at the end of next year, he adds.

But the original JET report last year prompted the DoD to adopt an annual review process, in which the programme's budget could face significant increases.

"We're okay with that strategy because it gives us time to prove that we in industry don't want that [extra] money," Crowley says. "If we have an over-target baseline and they give us that money we get no fee on it and it comes at the price of jets, so that's not where we want to be." However, he adds that Lockheed is optimistic that the JET will adopt a less conservative position in its next review.

But F-35 programme executive Brig Gen David Heinz says the JET's estimate is not likely to change until Lockheed can complete more flight test hours. "We are still different in our opinion," he says. "The ultimate to the [JET] estimate is flight tests."

Lockheed Martin filmed the F-35C roll-out ceremony yesterday and released this highlight reel to the press. The ceremony took place at tip of Lockheed's "moving assembly" line for the F-35, which does not actually start moving until late 2010 or early 2011. If you look in the foreground at the beginning of the video, you can see what looks like white curtains that stretch from the ceiling to the floor. That is actually where the F-16 line used to be located up until only a few weeks ago. The F-16 line has now been moved to another facility in Fort Worth. In its place, Lockheed is increasing production capacity for the F-35 ahead of the LRIP-3 contract for 17 aircraft. First, however, Lockheed is rebuilding four acres of the 60-year-old factory floor, which is why you see the white curtains. The speakers on the video, in order of appearance, are: Tom Burbage, Lockheed vice president and general manager; Brig Gen David Heinz, F-35 programme executive officer and Adm Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations. Interestingly, Roughead told us he is headed to Seattle to attend the roll-out for the Boeing P-8A, which has been awkwardly scheduled three months after first flight. But the timing is incredible: two US navy jets roll-out this week!

Lockheed Martin formally unveiled the first F-35C today carrier variant at the factory in Fort Worth, Texas. I'll be writing more about that tonight and tomorrow, but first let me tell you about my ride in Lockheed's F-35 demonstration simulator.

The simulator is for demonstration purposes only. It is not intended to accurately simulate the F-35's flight and handling qualities. But Lockheed has coded the system to approximate how the F-35 should fly. So it rolls at the F-35's promised roll-rate at 300 degrees per second. It apparently tops out at Mach 1.6, the F-35's top speed.

In my scenario, I was flying an F-35B catapulted off a carrier deck. (The catapult launch was my choice, not theirs, by the way). I was loaded with a full weapons load, four internal and four external weapons (2 X AIM-9, 2 X AIM-120, 2 X GBU-32). After climbing to 11,400ft, and with 12,000lb of fuel, I opened the throttle to max speed. I accelerated very slowly from Mach 0.94 to Mach 1.0, and that was it. The system refused to fly any faster in level flight.

I don't know whether I should be pleased or disappointed, but I'm interested in hearing opinions.

Also, here's a video introduction of the F-35 demonstrator with Lockheed's chief pilot interface engineer, Mike Scaff.

 

(h/t Guillame -- thanks!)

This explains the blog I posted on Friday. While the in-flight ejection and the canopy-less, Mach 2 flight remain controversial, we now know there is a movie.The movie's web site even thanks the Russian Knight acrobatic team for their support. 

It's called Kerosene Cowboys, a Mario Van Peebles flick, and it's scheduled for release on November 9. Mark your calendars! Watch for any hint of the possible, in-flight, back-seat Flanker ejection.

For those who want to know more about the plot of the movie, here's the write-up from IMDB:

In 2001 in Iraq, two American NAVY pilots - Butch Masters and Tom Craig - are ordered to bomb an abandoned plant. The order appears to be false. American experts get killed in the plant. A secret chemical device, called "Rainmaker", designed for oil fields destruction, gets stolen. Military court cannot prove pilot's intention, and gives them dishonorable discharge. After 7 years Craig is reach [sic] and famous. He manages a private pilot team, working for Top Gun and for movies. Masters is a "grease monkey" in a small airport. He still tries to investigate his old case, and dreams of his own pilot's team. In order to get a license to fly Russian jets, Masters goes to St.Petersburg... At the same time, Kurdish terrorist group plans to capture a part of Northern Iraq ... They plan to use "Rainmaker" to destroy oil fields... Terrorist's base is located in Northern Iran... NAVY intelligence offers Masters chance to "clean his name" by performing a secret ... mission ... Using unmarked planes, they have to bomb the base and destroy "Rainmaker". Doomed to death, betrayed by friends, left in Syrian desert, Masters and his team finds unexpected support from a side of "Russian Nights" jet fighter aerobatic group. Russians and Americans go to final battle side by side, and leave no chance to terrorists.

When Lockheed Martin rolls out the F-35C on July 28, US Navy pilots will be one step closer to operating a single-engine fighter off a carrier deck. The DEW Line contributor Dave Majumdar explores this issue with an active F/A-18 pilot with more than 1,700 flying hours, who asked to remain anonymous.

If there is any doubt that the US Navy aviation community will accept a single-engine fighter, such as the F-35C, one pilot has a clear answer: That "decision has been made" already and, after all, "the Navy is not a democracy".

But concerns about the issue among rank-and-file pilots clearly linger.

The F/A-18 pilot says the Navy has worked hard to get to a point where only twin-engine jets were serving on the decks of carriers.

I can hear the dealer's sales pitch now: "What do I have to do for you to fly out of here today in your very own Sukhoi SU-27 Flanker?"

As blogger Dave Majumdar has reported, Illinois-based Pride Aircraft is offering two demilitarized SU-27s. Pride specializes in selling Czech-made L-39 jet trainer, and acquired the former Ukrainian Flankers from a previous customer. The aircraft have been stripped of all military avionics and weapons systems, and are intended to be sold as warbirds.

This gives me hope. After I make my fortune in the blogging business (hah!), it's nice to know there will be some cool toys waiting for me to play around with. I've always said the SU-27 would be my pick in a fourth-generation fighter dogfight. It's not because I believe it would beat an F-15. It's because, as a lowly journo-blogger, I expect to survive about 2 seconds in a real dogfight, and I've heard many good things about Russian ejection seat technology!

This is one of those stories that's so crazy it is probably true.

Here's how it goes: A Russian movie company hires two Sukhoi pilots to film a couple of stunts. The pilots agree to take off without a canopy.

Apparently following a plot-twist in the film, the back-seat pilot ejects from the aircraft while the front-seater keeps flying.

(As a friend of mine notes: "Why use dummies when you can use real Russian pilots? Those guys are amazing." )

The front-seater later claims he flew beyond Mach 2.0 ... with an open canopy! And then he says: "While on this speed I even managed to pull out my fingers in glove for an inch or two outside - it became heated very fast because of immense friction force plane undergoes with the air."

Oh, and this was all done with Sukhoi's tail number 801, which is nothing less than the SU-35UB prototype -- one of the most advanced jets Sukhoi ever built!!! (See SU-35UB promo video below.)

Did you know that the Iceland Coast Guard operates one Fokker 27 that is now 32 years old? That Australia operates five different models of the Bombardier Dash-8 for maritime patrol? Well, now you do! Browse Flightglobal's ISR market report here, or download the full document here.

Australia is apparently buying four more Boeing C-17A Globemaster III cargo aircraft, along with technical support and spares for an amazing bargain price of $300 million, according to this press release issued this morning by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA).

Er, or not.

The DSCA clearly botched the press release. The government of Australia already purchased four C-17s plus related spares two three years ago, thank you very much, and has the $2 billion receipt to prove it.

Today's DSCA announcement should have simply announced that Australia has signed up for Boeing's global sustainment partnership program for the C-17. 

The dawn of a new age of warfare is upon us, where even the most advanced and capable machines, such as the Lockheed Martin F-22, are apparently replaceable. It's not about the platforms, they tell us. It's about systems of usually less capable platforms.

As this theory transitions into reality, the move last week in the US Senate to end F-22 production after 187 aircraft built may be remembered as a key inflection point.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has never used the outdated and loaded term "transformation" in his case against building more F-22s. But those who argue the age of building increasingly exquisite platforms is over have clearly influenced the Secretary's thinking.

In this sense, the F-22 can be viewed as a modern corollary to the SR-71, another Lockheed-built aircraft that proved to be as much an indispensable military asset as it was a precious work of art.

As was the case with the SR-71, which had no equals during its era, the F-22 is today's foremost fighter. It is likely to remain so until the day it is eventually retired.

(That is, of course, unless the Russians and Chinese acquire the skills to build a comparable platform. But imagining how they could afford it is difficult. If the SR-71 and F-22 strained even the vast resources of the United States, how can any other military power hope to match such capabilities? This is especially true in the absence of an actual conflict.)

Like the SR-71 before it, the F-22's superior performance comes at a price. The aircraft is expensive to buy and to operate, tricky to upgrade and hard to maintain.

The more painful truth is that the F-22 is a flying contradiction to the systems theorists. The Raptor was designed to be a technological loner in an increasingly networked battlespace.

In the Northrop Grumman APG-77 radar and the BAE Systems ALR-94 electronic warfare suite, the F-22 may possess the two most powerful sensors ever installed on a tactical fighter. Yet, this bonanza of intelligence data gathered by the aircraft's sensors can not be shared with other platforms save for other F-22s. In the ten years since the start of the network centric warfare revolution, the F-22 still cannot transmit the reams of data collected to those in urgent need of actionable intelligence.

However, cancelling F-22 production now is not without risks. While this may be the age of networks and sensors, if the platforms carrying those systems are not fast, stealthy, or numerous enough to execute the mission, it begs the question, what good are they?

The Lockheed Martin F-22 production line is dead -- or is it?

As we all know by now, the US Senate voted yesterday to strike $1.75 billion for seven more F-22s, but that was only one version of the authorization bill. Senate appropriators will take up the issue next week, and support for the F-22 on the defense subcommittee remains strong. The House of Representatives has already added $360 million to buy long-lead parts for 12 F-22s.

This isn't the first time the F-22 faced an existential threat. If Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had his way in 2004, funds to buy new F-22s would have finally dried up last year. The US Air Force avoided Rumsfeld's budget axe by stretching a two-year production plan to three years, which is where we are today.

Ten years ago this week, the F-22 really looked dead. Rep Jerry Lewis, possibly waging a personal vendetta against perceived slights by Lockheed, shocked the US Air Force, Lockheed and -- for that matter -- everybody. Lewis proposed postponing the first production contract for F-22s by two years, which would have added about $6 billion to the program's cost and essentially killed it. The House appropriators on the defense subcommittee went along with Lewis' proposal, again shocking Eisenhower/McCain's military-industrial-congressional complex.

The F-22 was ultimately saved at the eleventh hour three months later by the program's powerful supporters in the US Senate, led by Senator Ted Stevens.

The moral of this story: Don't bet against the F-22. 

MC-12 Liberty

globalsecurity.org

Apture™

L-3 Communications has converted all seven used Beechcraft King Air 350s ordered by the US Air Force as part of phase 1 of Project Liberty. The announcement on 22 July indicates the programme has recovered from early delays blamed on the unexpected complexity of converting used aircraft into a common military configuration.

READ FULL NEWS STORY HERE

READ NEWS ARTICLE ON FLIGHTGLOBAL HERE

More news articles on F-22 cancellation:

Politico: Senate votes to cut F-22 fighter jet funding
New York Times: Bowing to veto threat, Senate blocks funding for warplanes
The Washington Post: Senate votes down funds for F-22s
Boston Globe: Senate cuts F-22 money
Atlanta Journal Constitution: Senate strips funding from defense bill
Air Force Times: Senate votes to kill F-22
Aviation Week & Space Technology: Senate votes to end F-22 as planned

With the US Senate expected to vote on continued F-22 production later today,, retired general Richard Hawley, who led Air Combat Command from 1996 to 1999, spoke with The DEW Line contributor Dave Majumdar.

186 F-22 Raptors should comprise a sufficient force if the United States decides to shift its posture to fight only one major regional conflict at a time, Richard Hawley says.

But Hawley cautions that resourcing the military for such a posture poses significant risks. "Frankly, that's a gamble", he says. In over 200 years of modern military history, no strategist has ever been able to predict future conflicts, he notes.

What concerns Hawley more, he said, is that with the shift to a single major regional conflict focus comes the "temptation to under resource that force structure".

Based on prior experience, Hawley fears that future planners will be tempted to under-resource a single major war force structure. "We might find ourselves with a 0.6 major regional war force", Hawley stated bluntly.

While formally the United States has had two-war strategy for sometime, when Hawley retired from the USAF in 1999, the resources to fight two simultaneous wars were lacking. "We were, during that time, at a level of allocation where we were resourced to fight 1.6 or 1.7 major regional conflicts- depending upon the adversary. It's a judgment", Hawley said.

Leave it to the Center for American Progress (CAP), John Podesta's new think-tank, to produce perhaps the most creative anti-F-22 propaganda video recorded. Technically-literate, pro-F-22 supporters could easily rip this video apart, but I suspect that CAP wasn't aiming this at a technical audience.

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics division's multimedia team in Fort Worth has taken credit for these images. It's quite a shrewd viral marketing scheme to promote the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which are not likely to appear in Thunderbird colors for at least another decade. The pictures were posted on an F-16.net in early June, where they received (deserved) high praise. I found them on Twitpic this morning as the images are rapidly becoming a viral marketing "hit".

"Who is Eric L. Palmer?" That question was the subject of a recent F-16.net discussion, and for good reason. The former US Air Force photographer now working in Australia has become a prolific blogger on defense technology issues, and a leading blogosphere critic of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

TDL: Why did you start blogging about defens(c)e technology?

ELP: Many reasons I guess....

In part to fill in the blanks for anyone that cares to read. The mainstream news don't know a lot about defense issues and get them wrong more times than not. Ditto with government officials--especially those that have never put on a uniform. Just as important though is to entertain. While some may look at blogs for information, many look at them for entertainment value. If a blog doesn't in some way entertain you (in the broad sense), maybe it is time to change the channel. Especially important; my writings are my opinion. Everyone has an opinion. It is fun to cast one out on the water and see what you reel in.

TDL: If your answer to number 1 doesn't already cover it, what are your thoughts about how defense technology is covered in the 'mainstream' and 'trade' press?

The lawsuit above is at least the third False Claims Act lawsuit filed against Lockheed Martin by Houston-based lawyer Samuel Boyd. The previous two involve the Deepwater and F-22 programs. Lockheed, for its part, says it will "vigorously defend this matter in court".

Read the news article about the lawsuit on Flightglobal.com.

As far as I know, this is the first accusation in public about the quality of the F-35's software, which has actually been praised by top program officials as an area of high achievement.

Here's a new way to win a "billion dollar defense opportunity". Shoot a promo video where fighter pilots are saved by intelligence weenies. Oh, and give the pilot a nifty call sign like "Cobra II", appropriated bizarrely from the infamous code name for the 2003 invasion plan of Iraq. The video was produced by Taft and Partners on behalf of an unnamed defense contract. It first appeared on YouTube earlier today.

The General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc MQ-9 Reaper will rule the US Air Force fleet of medium-altitude unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) through the middle of the next decade. The USAF's newly-released UAS flight flight plan shows the Reaper's capability will steadily expand with the arrival of new payloads, such as the Gorgon Stare sensor in 2010. The USAF also revealed plans to test the Reaper next year as a replacement for the US Navy EA-6B, which is retired in FY12. 

The Reaper will be augmented during the next decade with the MQ-X, which is pictured in the flight plan as a stealthy, jet-powered aircraft. It retains the surveillance and close air support mission of the MQ-9, and adds an electronic warfare mission. In many ways, this recalls the objectives of the joint unmanned combat air systems (J-UCAS), which was cancelled after 2005.

The MQ-X also opens the door to a very ambitious future. By the middle of this century, the USAF anticipates follow-on versions of this type to rule the skies. These aircraft will function as combination dogfighters, intelligence collectors, strikers and even tankers.

The USAF flight plan is available for download at this link.

I've heard that defense contractors are looking to pursue growth in a downturn by diverting military products into adjacent markets.

But this -- wink -- is ridiculous.

Here's a quick summary of the aerospace winners and losers from today's mark-up of the defense budget by the House appropriations subcommittee on defense. The press release above can also be downloaded at this site. The House appropriators mark-up follows previous votes by the authorizing committees of the House and Senate. The Senate appropriators have yet to take up the defense bill. 

Down:
- $530 million to cut 2 USAF Lockheed Martin F-35s
- $200 million from DARPA

Up
+ $674 million for 3 more Boeing C-17s
+ $536 $560 million for F-35 alternate engine, the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136
+ $495 million for 9 more Boeing F/A-18E/Fs
+ $430 million for more Lockheed F-35 development funding
+ $400 million to operationalize 5 pilot production Lockheed/AgustaWestland VH-71s
+ $369 million for advanced procurement of 12 Lockheed F-22s
+ $142 million for 1 more Northrop Grumman E-2D Hawkeye

HAC Commentary
KC-X -- The subcommittee says DOD can award a sole source contract or split the deal. The language also encourages DOD to buy tankers at a rate of more than one per month. 

Aerospace blogger and journalist Dave Majumdar, a contributor to The DEW Line, has interviewed Lockheed Martin and F-35 program officials in advance of roll-out of CF-1, the first prototype of the naval variant. 

Debuting on the July 28 is the US Navy's first all-aspect stealth aircraft, the F-35C.

Designed to meet the stringent requirements for a "very long range, very low observable, first day of war strike aircraft", the "F-35 has all-aspect stealth", said Steve Weatherspoon, Lockheed Martin's Deputy Test Verification officer for the F-35 Integrated Test Force.

The naval variant "was designed from the beginning to operate in the maritime environment", said Steve O'Bryan, a Lockheed Martin Vice President for Business Development. According to O'Bryan, the aircraft's radar absorbent coatings were designed to be able to withstand daily exposure to the high temperatures, salt water, and chemicals encountered onboard an aircraft carrier. O'Bryan adds that the new coatings will be "resilient" enough that the aircraft's radar cross section will not suffer when it is scratched, chipped, or cracked "during day-to day operations in a naval environment".  This should greatly reduce the maintenance burden for the Navy, he said.

Craig Williams, head of Business Development for the F-35C at Lockheed Martin, explains that the new coatings are "less ornate" than previous incarnations of radar absorbent materials (RAM). The new compounds dispense with the "silver paint" primers found in previous designs, "completely eliminating" the hazardous and difficult substance.

In order to validate the performance of the new low-observable (LO) materials, Williams explained that "coupons" of the compound are being tested "on the beach" and "at sea" for "days, weeks, months, and years at a time". The new coatings have also been tested in a specially designed chamber where they have been exposed to "salt fog" and gases such as sulfur dioxide, which would be encountered under operational conditions.

To ensure that the LO seal of the aircraft is not routinely broken, Williams explains that "natural openings" are utilized for maintenance as often as possible. These "natural openings" include the wheel wells and the weapons bays among others. Where access is not possible through these openings, access panels are provided. O'Bryan points out the baseline requirements for the JSF program mandate that the jet be "twice as reliable as a late model F-16 or F/A-18", which should substantially reduce the need to break open the LO seals under operation conditions.

Furthermore, "everything faced during F-22 operations has been improved upon", Williams said, reflecting upon the "lessons learned" from that program.  Recently, he added that he had attended a meeting where JSF program officials met with their F-22 counterparts. According to Williams, the verdict from the F-22 officials was that "every possible lesson learned" from the Raptor had been incorporated into the Lightning II.

First flight for the F-35C is scheduled for the end of the year, after which the aircraft will head to NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, in the first half of 2010.

This video, posted yesterday on YouTube, shows the all the good and bad points about the F-35 factory in Fort Worth, Texas. You see the electronic mate and alignment system (EMALS), the sophisticated tool where the wings and fuselage are joined together. But you also see the distant wing assembly area, which is currently located far from the desired production flow. You also see the static final assembly line. In 2011, this part of the line is supposed to start moving. And you also see workers working in horizontal positions, which is only necessary to complete out-of-sequence, or "travelled", work. By 2016, Lockheed plans to be delivering F-35s the way Boeing currently delivers 737s and Airbus builds A320s -- at peak rates of one per day.

Senator John McCain introduced an amendment yesterday to strike a $1.7 billion authorization to buy seven more Lockheed Martin F-22s in Fiscal 2010. The Senate may vote on the authorization bill today or tomorrow. Sen Johnny Isakson opposes McCain's amendment, and yesterday delivered a brief rebuttal.


Sen Carl Levin has also released his floor speech yesterday about his opposition to extending F-22 production by seven aircraft next year. Watch below.

If the US Air Force deployed Lockheed Martin F-22s to Afghanistan today, could they do anything? Some argue the F-22 is over-engineered to fight the Taliban, which is not an unreasonable claim. But, for the sake of argument, could the F-22's current air-to-ground capabilities contribute to the attack?

Perhaps other informed bloggers, such as Bill Sweetman, Eric Palmer and Dave Majumdar, could contribute here, but this is what I think.

The F-22 has a weapons bay equipped to store two GBU-32 joint direct attack munitions. In theory, yes, it could attack ground targets. But the F-22 needs more than a weapon to attack ground targets. The aircraft must have the means to receive updates about the target after taking off. This is where the current state of the F-22's capabilities get complicated.

As a stealthy aircraft, the US Air Force equipped the F-22 to transmit data only with other F-22s on a low-probability of intercept signal. As far as we know, no other aircraft has the ability to exchange data with the F-22. That is expected to change with the arrival of the Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) in 2015. Even then, the MADL will allow the F-22 to share data about targets only with other stealth aircraft, such as the F-35 and B-2.

There is an interesting "but" here. In fact, the F-22 may have the ability to share data with troops on the ground today, but the USAF has declined my requests to confirm that information. In April 2008, the USAF demonstrated that the F-22's solitary waveform could plug into the battlefield network. The USAF used a Northrop Grumman system installed on a Bombardier Global Express XRS regional jet to translate the F-22's intraflight data link into Link 16. The same software could be used to "bridge" the F-22 signal into a CDMA waveform, which is the standard used for many mobile phones.

Last month, the USAF announced that the Northrop Grumman system -- hilariously called BACN, or battlefield airborne communications node -- is now operational, and has been flying in Afghanistan and Iraq since at least last November. BACN has been deployed because it can patch ground radios into the Link 16 network used by most non-stealthy combat aircraft.

The question now is whether the F-22 bridging demonstration last year has become an operational capability. As I said before, the USAF has declined to answer my requests for this information. So we don't know. But it is possible.

UPDATE: Apologies to anyone who has had trouble downloading the document. I have not been able to fix those problems. AIA has now posted the document online, so you can also download the document here.

You knew it was coming. The Washington Post struck hard against the "I'm not dead yet!" F-22 last week. Now the combined forces of the US Air Force, Lockheed Martin and their media sympathizers have jumped to its defense.

This is a story about the F-22's maintenance problems, and the pro-F-22 ELP's Defens(c)e Blog puts this issue into a wider context.

What the Post really missed is that maintenance USAF wide is having challenges and not just one specific airframe. In the past several years with shortages of funds for just about everything, even simple to maintain F-16s have lost up to 10 percent of their mission capable (MC) rates. If one is going to only criticize one USAF airframe they are missing the big picture. Almost all USAF airframes have gone down in MC rates and not just due to age.

The Air Force Association's house magazine dismissed the whole piece as a "Washington Post gut job" riddled with unnamed official sources. Instead, quoting response memos by the US Air Force and Lockheed Martin -- okay, not exactly impartial sources -- Air Force magazine says the F-22 fleet is on track to acheive an 85% mission capable rate after 100,000 hours. The F-22, moreover, has become less costly to maintain, even though the stealth coatings fail at half their expected lifetime, the magazine says.

Who doesn't love a really cool X-15 poster? Thanks to the folks at NASA for advertising this poster on Twitter this morning. You can download your own copy here, but here's a peek.

R. Jeffrey Smith writes today in The Washington Post that the F-22 "has major shortcomings". The US Air Force says the F-22 costs $44,259 to fly one hour, compared to $30,818 for the F-15. An unnamed "critic" in the Department of Defense calls the F-22's maintenance problems a "disgrace". The reporter connects Darrol Olsen's allegations -- first reported on this blog -- with a series of operational test and evaluation reports criticizing the F-22's stealth coatings.

Smith also buries a major scoop about the March 25 crash of an F-22 six miles north of Harpers Dry Lake, California, which killed Lockheed test pilot David Cooley.

The Air Force has declined to discuss the cause, but a classified internal accident report completed the following month states that the plane flew into the ground after poorly executing a high-speed run with its weapons-bay doors open, according to three government officials familiar with its contents. The Lockheed test pilot died.

Several sources said the flight was part of a bid to make the F-22 relevant to current conflicts by giving it a capability to conduct precision bombing raids, not just aerial dogfights. The Air Force is still probing who should be held accountable for the accident.

Addison Schonland of the IAG blog has a great podcast interview today with Boeing tanker spokesman Bill Barksdale. If you wondered if Boeing is really interested in a 777-based tanker, Barksdale's new interview should dispel any doubts. Yes, Bill says, Boeing may still offer a 767-based tanker if US Air Force wants something smaller and more agile. But Bill seemed much more enthusiastic about the prospect of a KC-777. He also threw out some interesting new statistics. I have an excerpt below, but check out Schonland's blog to hear the podcast (fee required).

BARKSDALE: The 777 as a tanker is just so much more capable than anything it's got as a peer. And I know that sounds like a bit of bravado, but if you really get down to it, if they really value what you would call a large airplane - a widebody tanker -- and everything that goes with it, that 777 is amazing. I'll give you a couple of examples. If you compare them, the 777 would provide - deliver - however you want to say it -- 23% more fuel than the KC-30. It could carry 44% more payload - more cargo - in the back. And it also would carry about 42% more passengers in the back as well. So those are very generic, very general kinds of numbers. There's a lot more data we could get into at some point down the line. ... If the air force really wants to go in that direction, the Boeing company has spent a lot of time in the last year preparing for that, knowing that we have a real, true, large tanker that, like I said, is comparable in size to the KC-30. And, yet, you get you get so much more for your money.

Boeing released this video yesterday as part of the unveiling of the first of 24 F/A-18Fs ordered by the Royal Australian Air Force, the first export customer for the Super Hornet.

SAINT LOUIS, Missouri -- Boeing Phantom Works has revealed a new concept image for an F/A-XX fighter to replace the F/A-18E/F fleet after about 10-15 more years. The two-seat, twin-engine, tailless concept is advertised in the chart below as a "sixth-generation" fighter. The notional -- and evolving -- definition for a sixth-generation includes such technologies as optional manning, combined cycle propulsion, visual stealth, more composite materials and advanced electronic attack capabilities.

Boeing's new artistic concept marks a sharp departure from the image the company released in June 2008, which was first displayed on Aviation Week & Space Technology's Ares blog. While the previous design showed a flying-wing fighter, the new image reveals a more conventional fighter shape from the cockpit area forward. You can see the changes below.
 
The F/A-XX concept first emerged last June, when US Navy officials first publicly discussed the potential requirement at the AUVSI convention in San Diego. Here are two pictures from that slide presentation showing the manned concepts on the USN officer's briefing slide. (Read more here.)

SAINT LOUIS, Missouri -- Boeing unveiled the first of 24 F/A-18Fs ordered by the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) in a ceremony this morning in St. Louis, Missouri. The event drew hundreds of Boeing factory employees and RAAF officials, including Air Marshall Mark Binskin, Australia's air force chief. Binskin said the F/A-18F will help the RAAF transition to the advanced avionics and stealth technology offered by the F-35. Australia plans to order 100 F-35s. If Boeing still hopes to supplant the F-35 in Australia with an expanded order for F/A-18s, Binskin delivered a tough message. There will be no "Plan B" if the F-35 is delayed, he said, adding: "Sorry, Bob." Bob Gower is Boeing's F/A-18 vice president.

READ NEWS STORY HERE

I interviewed Harry Schulte, vice president of Raytheon Missile Systems, last week. We were discussing the competition for the Small Diameter Bomb Increment 2, a weapon designed to hit moving targets in all weather. Schulte joined Raytheon in 2003 from US Special Operations Command, where he was an acquisition executive.

Schulte explained to me how a weapon like SDB-II could have been used in Afghanistan.
 
"[Osama] Bin Laden, before he got smart, he had the only white SUV that had a sun roof in Afghanistan ... but he figured that out pretty fast," Schulte said.

A C-130 air drop of construction materials at FOB Todd in Afghanistan goes awry in this video posted on LiveLeak yesterday. Warning: The audio is not safe for work.

Bloomberg columnist Celestine Bohlen this morning proposes a radical solution to the "A400M nightmare": Have Europe agree to dump the troubled airlifter and buy US-made C-17s and C-130Js. In exchange, somehow force the US Air Force to agree to buy an all-Airbus tanker fleet (presumably without competition)! The Paris-based Bohlen writes:

There may be a solution: If the Europeans swallow their pride, and buy American military-transport planes, then maybe the U.S. Air Force could stifle its own protectionist urges and award a much-disputed $40 billion contract for aerial-refueling tankers to EADS and its U.S. partner, Northrop Grumman Corp.

The Europeans have a refueling tanker -- the A330-200 -- which is already up and flying. The Americans have well-tested military-transport planes. Why reinvent the wheel when there is one already on the shelf?

Surely, burden sharing is what the trans-Atlantic alliance is all about. Why should the U.S. and Europe be duking it out for orders when in another 20 years, they will both be desperate to save their defense industries from being cannibalized by China and India?

Where does one begin?

To think about the political, economic and industrial consequences of a simple transatlantic, transports-for-tankers swap is like considering the riddles of quantum theory.

It is interesting for a moment to consider whether Boeing might accept giving up its monopoly on USAF tankers in return for splitting the market for global airlift between the C-17 and C-130J. But that moment passes quickly. The USAF needs hundreds of tankers, and the world probably needs only dozens of new C-17s. Meanwhile, Airbus trades a deeply troubled program for a production bonanza and an industrial foothold in their competitor's backyard. How do you think that arrangement goes over with the US Congress?

My advice: Avoid taking advice from Bloomberg columnists.

I had two things to say in my blog post this morning about the news that US officials reportedly pressured Israeli Aircraft Industries to withdraw a radar from the Saab Gripen team's proposal to India.

1. The story may be dubious because Saab had already selected a Selex radar.
2. It could also be irrelevant because the French probably did the same thing.

But other analysts and bloggers have come to different conclusions.

Michel Merluzeau, of G2 Global Solutions, first writes that the Israeli radar, in fact, would have been very attractive to Saab despite already signing Selex as a partner. Second, Merluzeau says the US anti-competitive strategy is likely to backfire.

"It would provide ammo to those in the Indian military and political classes that the US would not hesitate to apply pressure on India in terms of how the country's air force may be able to use or modify MMRCA in the future.  This is an issue that MiG, Dassault and Eurofighter will undoubtedly exploit in order to spread further doubts as to the reliability of the US as a key supplier/partner; whether or not this argument holds ground is perhaps secondary at this point since some level of damage might already have been done, especially with Indian politicians.  Dassault's Rafale could suddenly be looking like the favorite."

The words "TFX" and "TPP" still raise chills in defense board rooms nearly 50 years after they were invented. And, for better or worse, both terms -- landmark policy failures of military acquisition -- will be associated with Robert McNamara, who died earlier this morning.

The failures of Tactical Fighter Experimental, or TFX, set back the cause of joint acquisition of military aircraft until the mid-1990s, when the Pentagon launched the program that became the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

It is difficult to fault McNamara's logic in hindsight. The air force needed a new air superiority fighter and the navy required a fleet defense fighter. Combining the two programs would save taxpayers $1 billion and might even promote inter-service cooperation, right? Well, the insistence upon a common airframe -- as opposed to a family of aircraft sharing common production and a majority of components -- doomed the project from the start. The navy canceled its version in 1968, leaving the US Air Force with the F-111, a compromised, over-weight fighter that eventually found a valuable niche as a regional bomber and radar jammer.

Total Package Procurement, or TPP, was the other disaster of McNamara's tenure. After being duped and disappointed by defence contractors throughout the 1950s, McNamara's Pentagon unleashed TPP starting with the C-5A contract award to Lockheed. It was another failure. Lockheed was required to commit up-front to the C-5A's development and production costs, plus guarantee performance and delivery dates. (Airbus agreed to supply the A400M under similar terms nearly 40 years later, with similar results.) Lockheed won the C-5A contract with a $1.9 billion bid, compared to Boeing's $2.3 billion offer. But the C-5A's costs eventually grew to $5.2 billion, threatening to bankrupt Lockheed and diverting air force funds from other needs.

The DEW Line is proud to introduce new blog contributor Dave Majumdar. This is his first post.

Aleksander Dultsev, a Russian industrial design artist, has created some stunning renderings of what he imagines the Sukhoi PAK-FA 5th generation fighter might look like.

Dultsev has created three such designs. One is clearly based on the Sukhoi Su-47 Berkut, while another appears to be based loosely on the hypothetical 1980s vintage Testors F-19 stealth aircraft model kit.

A third design seems to combine the characteristics of the Testors F-19 with that of the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.
 

A Jerusalem Post article yesterday claims the US government denied Israel Aircraft Industries the chance to offer an Elta Systems radar for the Saab Gripen proposal to India.

The claims have already been picked up by the Times of India, which has branded the US actions as "arm-twisting". The Israeli claims have a familiar ring. The US also denied Israel the chance to export airborne early warning radar technology to China and recently blocked Israel from supplying technology for a main battle tank to Turkey.

But the Jerusalem Post article lacks a very important detail. Saab has already teamed with Italy's Selex to offer a Gripen NG equipped with active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar to India and Brazil. It is not clear from the Jerusalem Post report when or even if Saab had offered IAI an opportunity to propose a different radar to India.

It is also worth noting that Saab chose the Selex radar despite operating initially selecting a Thales radar on its Gripen NG demonstrator. It is widely believed that the French government blocked Thales from competing with the Dassault Rafale in both India and Brazil.

READ FLIGHT'S NEWS ARTICLE HERE

Two Japan policy experts have written an excellent piece for the Japan Times on the F-22 export issue. The idea of exporting F-22s to Tokyo was thought to have died two years ago, but suddenly revived in the past six weeks even as the F-22 production line's survival is in doubt. But the Japan Times op/ed suggests the ongoing debate may be driven as much by domestic politics in Japan as any security issues. 

Hurdles to a Japanese F-22

By WESTON S. KONISHI and ROBERT DUJARRIC

Special to The Japan Times

North Korea's return to saber-rattling has brought military affairs back to the top of the Japan-U.S. agenda. As many Japanese continue to have -- unfounded -- doubts about the commitment of the Obama administration to the bilateral alliance, they are pushing for Washington to allow Japan to purchase America's most advanced fighter aircraft, the F-22 Raptor.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL STORY

When F-35 program executive Brig Gen David Heinz last month said that he does not believe that "Pratt feels compelled to act as though they are in competition", I did not know what to make of that statement. So I asked two of Pratt & Whitney business development executives yesterday how they interpreted it. The answer became the basis for a news story that will be posted on Flightglobal.com later today.

The F-35 program holds suppliers to standard learning curve theory. This predicts that suppliers become more efficient as production rates grow. According to the theory, a 100% learning curve means costs will never decline. The supplier essentially has to re-learn the production process with each new unit. The F-35 program expects suppliers to achieve an 88% learning curve. This rate projects that costs will fall by 12% every time the production rate doubles. 

According to P&W's executives, the F135 is "about halfway" between the 88% standard and the 100% level -- so about 94%. This means that the projected cost savings for doubling the production rate will be less than 12%, but I'm not sure by how much.

A "blue ribbon" panel created by Heinz accepted two weeks ago a plan by P&W to achieve the 88% learning curve benchmark over a period of years. The plan will require some additional upfront costs.

It's not clear how this will affect the debate about funding an alternate engine for the F-35 -- the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136. The F136 is about five years behind the development of the F135. Its first production order is not scheduled to come until next year, if Congress decides to insert $600 million in the budget to pay for them. The GE/Rolls team has not yet faced the pressure of keeping yearly production lots for the F136 on an 88% learning curve.

But the issue may help explain why Heinz has become an outspoken advocate for promoting the principle of competition within the F-35's supply chain.