May 2010 Archives

Alenia North America is quietly previewing a new marketing blitz to bolster the M346 Master's bid to replace the Northrop T-38 Talon as the US Air Force's next advanced jet trainer.

The online campaign, rolled out on Alenia NA's web site earlier this week, rebrands the Italian M346 as the "T-100 integrated training system (ITS)".


Although EADS North America is chasing the KC-X contract as a prime contractor, Alenia NA is actively seeking US partners to front its bid for the emerging T-X contract, which would replace about 450 T-38s with about 350 new aircraft and dozens of simulators.

The T-100 brand is an interesting choice. Alenia's primary competitor for T-X so far is the Lockheed Martin/KAI T-50 Golden Eagle. Perhaps by subtle implication, Alenia aims to show branding superiority in a T-100 versus T-50 competition. Or maybe it's just a nice, round number.

I'll assume that rebranding the M346 as the T-130, as an homage to the original Yakovlev project that spawned the Italian trainer, was swiftly ruled out.

Figuring out what the F-35 will cost is a matter of great dispute. A 20% spread exists, for instance, between Lockheed Martin's projections and the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE).

But there is no argument about what the F-35 has cost so far. Every penny spent on the program since contract award in 2001 has been tracked and published in the selected acquisition reports.

So what are the taxpayers getting for their investment?

By the end of Fiscal 2011, if the Department of Defense's latest budget request is approved, the F-35 program will have received $67.9 billion since the October 2001 contract award.

For that investment, Lockheed's global supply chain will have a total of 101 production aircraft on contract, with between 28 to 58 production of those aircraft delivered.

I compared that amount to the F-22 program. By the end of Fiscal 2011, the DOD is budgeted to spend $66.7 billion, with 188 aircraft on contract and nearly that amount delivered.



To be fair, the F-35's $67.9 billion pays for non-recurring engineering on three variants, which includes 14 flight test aircraft.

But it's an interesting benchmark for a program such as the F-35, which has few peers of any relevance. 

Proposals for the KC-X contract are not due until July 8, contract award is not scheduled until October-November and the political fall-out no matter who wins hasn't even begun to start.

But EADS North America may already be hiring production staff for the KC-45 tanker in anticipation of a contract award.

A job advertisement for an Air Vehicle Director posted on May 14 doesn't specifically say it's for KC-X. But the job description says it involves converting "a civil aircraft into a missionized military aircraft". The job also will start at EADS NA's headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, then shift permanently to Mobile, Alabama. If that's not about KC-X, our friends at EADS have some very interesting explaining to do.

In case anybody wants to apply, here are the job duties:

·         Staff, lead and manage a robust Air Vehicle Team

·         Develop and deploy Air Vehicle management and engineering processes, procedures, techniques and tools to ensure comprehensive practices for the entire product life cycle

·         Advise senior management on progress, issues, and impediments to Air Vehicle development/production

·         Assist the Systems Engineering Integration and Test (SEIT) Team in the conduct of trade studies to define implementations and alternatives that account for all program variables

·         Anticipate program disruptive events and redeploy resources as necessary to minimize impact

·         Coordinate with other program organizations and ensure that the various organizations remain coordinated

·         Ensure that overall customer requirements are met within cost and schedule constraints

·         Establish, manage and coordinate a modification capability for the missionization production activities

The Chinese Military Aviation blog last week posted a new photo showing a Boeing 737-300 as a military surveillance aircraft in the Chinese air force fleet.



Two questions: How did the People's Liberation Army Air Force get a 737 surveillance aircraft three years before the US military, which has just started flying prototypes of the 737-based P-8A? And, not least, who is in trouble?

Richard Fisher, senior fellow for Asian Military Affairs at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, answered both questions for me this morning.

Fisher, it turns out, broke the story of the PLAAF 737s at the 2004 Zhuhai air show, as he browsed a promotional video playing at the Xian Aircraft exhibit booth.

"I noticed what looked like - Good God, is that a 737?" Fisher recalls.

He snapped a photo showing the 737 parked next to H-6 bombers on the flightline outside Xian's factory. The airframe bore the familiar marks of surveillance aircraft, he says.

By the time Fisher returned home, images of two 737s operating as surveillance aircraft in the PLAAF fleet had appeared across the Internet. Modifying US-made airliners into military surveillance aircraft is illegal without a presidential-level waiver, which seems unlikely in China's case.

Despite the photographic evidence, the US government apparently never sanctioned Xian or Chinese airlines, both of which remain a huge part of Boeing's supply chain and order backlog, respectively, for civilian aircraft.

"Somehow our bureaucracy dropped the ball either for what they consider legitimate reasons, or," says Fisher, "for reasons we're not privy to, such as private lobbying from unnamed corporate forces who would not want sanctions placed on China which would have an impact on the sale of Boeing commercial aircraft."

How many more C-17s does the US Air Force need?

Let's ask Loren Thompson, a well-known and frequently quoted analyst with the Lexington Institute.

In March 2009, Thompson wrote an issue brief, titled, "The Military Needs Many More C-17 Airlifters", a well-reasoned defense of Boeing's case for adding more C-17s to the budget.

Today, Thompson swtiches sides, publishing a new brief, titled, "Gates Is Right: The Air Force Has Enough C-17s, Other Needs Are More Urgent".

Which Loren Thompson is correct? Thompson09? Or Thompson10?

I'll let them argue against each other, and let you decide.

"The C-17 will be the backbone of the airlift fleet for decades to come, and 205 isn't nearly enough to cover the world," Thompson09 says.

Nonsense, writes Thompson10.

"The simple truth is that it looks like the Air Force will soon have all the long-range airlift it needs," Thompson10 argues.

Thompson09 and Thompson10 also disagree about the reliability of the Lockheed Martin C-5 Galaxy, and whether an $11 billion upgrade program will address those shortfalls.

Thompson09 writes that the C-5 has "suffered from chronic readiness problems that will only be partly fixed by providing planes with new engines and electronics".

According to Thompson10, however, Thompson09 is wrong.

"Tests of an upgraded C-5M configuration have demonstrated that the Galaxy can be greatly enhanced at a fraction of the cost of buying new C-17s," Thompson10 writes.

Thompson10 also believes the role of the C-17 is shrinking with the demise of the Future Combat System and new plans to forward-base theater missile defenses.

But Thompson10 fails to consider a variety of non-traditional mission areas that are ideally suited for the C-17, Thompson09 argues.

"With ground forces growing and global roles proliferating, the list of emerging missions gets quite long, many of them requiring a plane that can land in remote, rugged locations," Thompson09 writes.  

Maybe you've been asking yourself: how will Russia ever replace the legendary Mi-24 Hind?



So, it turns out, has Russia.

Russian Helicopters Holdings, the corporate umbrella for Kamov, Kazan, Mil and Rostvertol, told the Moscow press yesterday the company will invest $1 billion to to develop a "fifth-generation helicopter". CEO Andrei Shibitov did not provide details, such as what exactly defines a fifth-generation helicopter.

But the Ria Novosti newswire reports Konstantin Sivkov, who is identified as the "first deputy head of the Russian Academy of Geopolitical Problems", filled in some criteria: Invisible to radar, extended flying range, smart weapons, air-to-air capability and 310-370mph speed.

Sivkov also noted the "US recently began working on a similar project". I'm not sure exactly what he's referring to. The US Army is considering launching the Joint Multi-Role (JMR) program, but the requirements are not set yet. Sivkov may be referring to the Sikorsky X2 or Boeing DiscRotor.

Ria Novosti also quotes Sivkov's boss, Leonid Ivashov, explaining the aircraft could fly within five years if it receives substantial investment, or "may drag on for 20-30 years" otherwise.

Update: Flightglobal first reported about this story two years ago at the Farnborough Air Show:

The Mi-X1 is an advanced conceptual project that is looking to increase the speed of its helicopters from 300kmh up to more than 500kmh. The company says it is also looking to engineer increased flight range of up to 1,500km in order to service offshore oil-platforms or other distant or difficult-to-reach locations. Mi-X1 is a civilian export product, though a lightweight military model is likely to be produced for the Russian armed forces.

When US Air Force researchers last year created the mother-of-all-processors using Sony PlayStation-3 game consoles, it seemed like a stroke of cost-saving genius.

To deliver a 53-TerraFLOP processing cluster, the Air Force Research Laboratory in Rome, N.Y., hoovered up 1,700 PlayStation-3 game consoles, then harnessed the power of their combined processors to evaluate new breakthroughs in technology for synthetic aperture radar, high definition video and something called "neuromorphic computing".

At the time, the researchers noted that two PlayStation-3 consoles provide 150 GigaFLOPs of processing power for $600, but a single 3.2GHz cell processor delivers 200 GFLOPs for $8,000. Why spend the extra cash when PlayStations come so cheap? (Besides, each of the 1,700 Sony processors comes with a controller and accessory package -- did someone say, 'EBay'?)

But Sony just ruined everything.

It turns out the AFRL's PlayStation-powered processing cluster is based on the Linux operating system. Well, Sony just released a new PS-3 update that removes the ability of the device to support other operating systems.

Gaming blog ARS Technica notes the AFRL's existing processing cluster still works, but the Linux-based devices can no longer be repaired or serviced if they break.

Says ARS Technica: "Such are the dangers of relying on consumer-grade hardware sold with a very different set of concerns from those that bedevil the scientists, especially in an era where firmware updates routinely alter functionality."

Here's one for your files. This slide comes from a presentation dated March 2010. Embraer is designing the jet-powered KC-390 to replace hundreds of Lockheed Martin C-130s around the world.

Update: Um, oops. A Boeing spokesman tells me both pictures below show the exact same aircraft. The picture Boeing released last year was obviously distorted. So the wingspan, fuselage length and chord of the aircraft in both photos are identical, Boeing says. If you're wondering why Boeing decided to stage a second roll-out for the same aircraft, well, me too! 



Boeing called the Phantom Ray an extension of the X-45C, but now it's clear the difference between the two aircraft is dramatic. See X-45C photo below.  



The Phantom Ray makes the X-45C look almost puny by comparison, although the latter represented the original vision of DARPA's joint unmanned combat air systems (JUCAS) program before it was canceled.

Phantom ray specifications:

General Characteristics:

Length: Wingspan: Gross Weight:	36 ft  (10.9 m) 50 ft (15.2 m) 36,500 lb  (16,556 kg)
Operating Altitude:	40,000 ft (12,192 m)
Cruise Mach:	0.8 (614 mph-988 km/h)
Engine:	F404-GE-102D

Read Boeing's new feature article on Phantom Ray here.

[Update: Bill Sweetman's Facebook post, which I quoted below, is the reason he's temporarily barred from the F-35 beat, Aviation Week tells Danger Room. The plot thickens. It makes you wonder if one of his 91 Facebook friends tattled on him.]

Bill Sweetman notified me this morning that he has been temporarily ordered off the F-35 story by Aviation Week management.

Aviation Week editor Tony Velocci initially told me "no comment", but added: "It was supposed to be an internal personnel matter but I'm really sorry to hear that he's spreading it around."

Sweetman is the editor of Defense Technology International, a monthly magazine published by the Aviation Week Group.

It's not clear what immediately precipitated the decision. But Sweetman is well-known as arguably one of the most outspoken -- and, it should be said, well-spoken -- critics of the F-35 program.

Lockheed Martin denies having any role in Sweetman's removal from the F-35 beat. "I can tell you Lockheed was not behind this," a spokesman says.

Sweetman recently visited Lockheed's F-35 factory in Fort Worth, Texas, along with Velocci and Aviation Week staff writer Amy Butler. On the eve of his visit, Sweetman on 26 April posted a typically droll comment on his private Facebook page:

"Gentlemen, your target for tonight is Fort Worth. Flacks are predicted to be numerous and persistent on the run-in and over the target, and bullshit is expected to be dense throughout the mission. Synchronize watches and good luck."

Full disclosure: Sweetman is a personal friend and former co-worker at Jane's. As a military technology journalist, I have great respect for his vast and detailed knowledge of weapon systems of all kinds.

But Sweetman himself would tell you he approaches F-35 coverage unlike other journalists. I see my role as simply to report the facts offered by both critics and supporters, allowing my readers to draw their own conclusions. Sweetman approaches F-35 coverage from the standpoint of an analyst who has empirically concluded the program is a flop. That position is always going to create a tension with his traditional role as journalist.

For the record, Aviation Week's full statement is below:

"Aviation Week is committed to providing objective aerospace and defense journalism based on independent and balanced coverage. Following comments posted on his personal Facebook page, the editorial team has decided that Bill Sweetman will not be covering the F-35 program for a period of time. We will continue to hold our journalists to the highest standards of editorial integrity to best serve the aerospace and defense community."

Update: Lockheed Martin has released a full statement:

"Lockheed Martin has not asked Aviation Week to take disciplinary action against Bill Sweetman nor have we asked that he be removed from reporting on the F-35 program or any other Lockheed Martin program. In fact on April 27 Bill and other members of the Aviation Week staff visited Lockheed Martin facilities in Fort Worth for briefings on the F-35 program. We have a longstanding professional relationship with the entire Aviation Week editorial staff, including Bill Sweetman, and we continue to work openly with them on all programs, including F-35."

Boeing graciously heeded my pleas to interview someone about their 1/16th scale model  and poster (above) at Navy League displaying two concepts for an all-new fighter jet that would appear after 2025.

I admit the idea of launching a development program for a new, at least optionally-manned fighter seems ludicrous after the early termination of F-22 production -- not to mention the ongoing concerns about F-35 cost and performance.

But a Boeing official told me the acquisition process for a new fighter for the US Navy and US Air Force has already begun. The navy has renamed its program from F/A-XX to next generation air dominance (NGAD) as it enters the analysis of alternatives stage. The air force, meanwhile, also is starting an alternatives study for an F-22 replacement.

As far-fetched as the idea seams, there is a real need. After the F-35 replaces the navy's F/A-18Cs and the air force's F-16s and A-10s, something has to replace the F/A-18E/F and F-22.



Boeing is betting that something will be a clean-sheet, tailless fighter design. Concepts displayed at Navy League show off a 40,000lb-class fighter for carrier decks. The air force would likely need an airframe at least 50% larger to replace the 60,000lb-class F-22. If the airframes are not common, the air force and navy would likely be pressured to share the cockpit avionics and -- possibly -- engines.

Read a preview of my full story in next week's magazine on the jump. 

That's my opinion of this F-35-related comment posted on the blog today by Amicus Curiae, an anonymous, amateur, airpower analyst with a fondness for Latin legal phrases and a healthy sarcastic streak.

The Larry Lawson appointment as F-35 General Manager is a case of Life imitating art. Now the journey to the Dark Side is complete for Anakin Skywalker. He has become Darth Vader.

Ralph Heath: What of the Rebellion? If the F-22 Rebels have obtained a complete technical reading of the F-35, it is possible, however unlikely, they might find a weakness and exploit it.

Larry Lawson: The plans you refer to will soon be back in our hands.

Dan Crowley: Any attack made by the F-22 Rebels against the F-35 project would be a useless gesture, no matter what technical data they have obtained. The F-35 organization is now the ultimate power in the universe. I suggest we use it.

Larry Lawson: Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a fighter jet project is insignificant next to the power of the Force.

Dan Crowley: Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerers ways, Lord Lawson. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the rebels' hidden fortress...

[Lawson makes a pinching motion and Crowley starts choking]
Larry Lawson: I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Gordon England: Rise my friend.

Larry Lawson: The F-35 will be completed on schedule.

Gordon England: You've done well, Lord Lawson. And now I sense you wish to continue your search for young Amicus Curiae.

Larry Lawson: Yes, my Master.

Gordon England: Patience, my friend. In time, he will seek *you* out, and when he does, you must bring him before me. He has grown strong. Only together can we turn him to the Dark Side of the Force.

Larry Lawson: As you wish.

Gordon England: Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.

Amicus Curiae, 5 hours ago on Non-bad news about F-35 

In the defense industry, stuff goes around, comes around, then switches sides.

Last August, the US Navy rejected Northrop Grumman's bid based on the MQ-8B Fire Scout for a contract to demonstrate autonomous resupply. Compared to the winning bidders -- Boeing A160 Hummingbird and Kaman/Lockheed Martin K-MAX -- the Fire Scout lacked cargo-carrying capacity.

Almost nine months later, Northrop showed up at the Navy League expo on Monday with Fire-X. It's an unmanned version of the Bell Helicopter 407 helicopter, which can lift more than twice the Fire Scout payload.

That means a Northrop-backed an unmanned derivative Bell 407 will compete for sales against a Lockheed-backed, unmanned K-MAX. Right now, the competition is over cargo resupply contracts, but that can change.

Six years ago, unmanned 407 and K-MAX derivatives fiercely competed for a contract called Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft (UCAR), a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) program that seems ambitious even today. If the US Army hadn't yanked the funding in late 2004, UCARs were supposed to enter service in 2012, filling the skies with radar-evading, unmanned rotorcraft intended to tag-team on assault missions with Boeing AH-64 Apaches and the defunct Sikorsky/Boeing RAH-66 Comanche.

Back then, Lockheed was teamed up with Bell, which offered an unmanned 407 with a NOTAR-like propulsive anti-torque system. Northrop was aligned with Kaman, offering a KMAX-like unmanned helicopter with inter-meshing rotors.

Neither UCAR airframe would enter service, but the program's underlying technology breakthrough -- manned/unmanned teaming -- is very much alive. The army simply moved the technology to its existing inventory of manned and unmanned aircraft. If the Block III AH-64 is fielded on schedule, the basic goal of UCAR will be fulfilled nearly on its original timeline.

But that doesn't mean UCAR-like airframes are out of the picture for good. Northrop is clear that the Fire-X concept can be adapted to intelligence-collecting and strike missions for the marines or the army. Bell's XWORX, meanwhile, has resumed investing in PATS technology, allowing future manned and unmanned helicopters to fly faster and without tailrotors.

Something has to replace the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet after 2025. Why not this?

I doubt that's Boeing sales pitch, but, in fairness, I haven't had an opportunity to discuss this 1/16th scale model -- displayed today at the Navy League Sea Air Space Expo 2010 in National Harbor, Md., -- with the relevant program staff (No pressure, Boeing communications staff!).

I first spied a photo of this concept last year on a visit to Boeing's St. Louis facility, where the F/A-18 is manufactured. That came about one year after the US Navy first publicly unveiled the F/A-XX concept at an AUVSI convention.

Technically, Boeing's concept does not compete with the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The F/A-XX program intends to replace the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, which had replaced Grumman F-14s. The F-35 will replace F/A-18Cs after 2015.

What a bad ride it's been for the F-35 program since February 1.

First, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates decapitated the F-35 Joint Program Office, denied Lockheed Martin's $614 million incentive fee and declined up to five of the 48 aircraft planned for the Fiscal 2011 budget. Then, the Defense Contracts Management Agency dumped hundreds of pages on its web site documenting Lockheed's painful production breakdowns. Finally, members of Congress aimed pot-shots at any Pentagon official remotely associated with F-35 procurement, with Sen Joseph Lieberman suggesting the military might be better off with fourth-generation fighter jets.

On top of everything else, Lockheed chief executive officer Robert Stevens last week warned Wall Street analysts about flight tests results. During the first three weeks of April, Lockheed had completed only 5 of the 29 sorties planned for April, Stevens said.

But could Stevens' burst of candor hide a clever trick? After so much doom and gloom, maybe Stevens issued a warning merely to set us up a dramatic finale. Perhaps Lockheed could recapture some lost momentum with a one-week, 24-sortie turnaround to remain on track?

The answer, it turns out, is no.

To be fair, the F-35 program came really close. In the end, the program's flight test team completed 27 of 29 planned sorties in April. On Friday, 30 April, the program recorded five flights. The day before, the program recorded another first, with three aircraft flying simultaneously. Those three aircraft -- AF-1, AF-2 and BF-2 -- seem to be workhorses of a resurgent flight test program for the F-35.

Getting the flight test program back on track is huge. So far, a total of seven aircraft have flown 197 times, with about half of those flights recorded by a single aircraft -- AA-1 -- which is now retired for live-fire testing.

More than 4,800 flight tests remain scheduled over the next five years. Moreover, the first carrier variant still hasn't flown. [By the way, CF-1 is required to fly by the end of May, not the end of April, as I reported previously.]

Completing 27 flights out of 29 scheduled in April isn't a breakthrough achievement, but it may offer hope the flight test program is finally stabilizing. In the first quarter of 2010, the program actually exceeded the three-month goal by four flights.

So the F-35 was up by four flights in March, and down by two flights in April. That means they're two flights ahead after four months. That's not bad.

It's too early to call it a trend or even real progress. But F-35 officials might be forgiven for a little celebrating. After this program's recent past, non-bad news right now probably feels pretty good.