Okay, let's see you're hands: Who guessed Boeing?
I admit I had my money on split-buy right before the contract award announcement. With all the twists and turns in the KC-X acquisition story, I just assumed that something nobody expected would happen. Looks like I was wrong.
Here's the updated news story I posted on Flightglobal a few minutes ago, but stay tuned. Who knows if this is over yet!
Meanwhile, here's my (sorry!) shaky flip-cam footage of the press conference inside the Pentagon briefing room this evening.
Recent Assets
February 2011 Archives
The US Air Force is about to make a decision involving a controversial acquisition strategy affecting a domestic versus foreign aircraft competition, but it's not about the KC-X tanker contract.
This one is called the common vertical lift support platform (CVLSP), which will replace the Bell Helicopter UH-1s owned by Global Strike Command.
There are five known interested bidders: the AgustaWestland North America AW139M, the Bell Helicopter UH-1Y Super Huey, the EADS North America AS332 Super Puma and the Sikorsky UH-60M.
Here's where the controversy comes in.
Instead of running a competition, Lt Gen James Kowalski, chief of Global Strike Command, wants to award a sole-source contract to Sikorsky. (See my story from the AFA Air Warfare Symposium.) Competitive protests derailed three attempts by the USAF to award a CSAR-X contract to the Boeing HH-47 Chinook since 2005. The CSAR-X contract would have allowed the USAF to replace the UH-1s for CVLSP at the same time. After waiting six years, Kowalski doesn't want to run the risk of another protest-driven acquisition delay.
Some of Sikorsky's competitors -- in particular, AgustaWesland -- think this strategy is flawed, and argue that the air force risks paying too much of the taxpayers' money on the wrong aircraft.
So what's the right decision: A sole source contract for the UH-60 or a competitive process?
This one is called the common vertical lift support platform (CVLSP), which will replace the Bell Helicopter UH-1s owned by Global Strike Command.
There are five known interested bidders: the AgustaWestland North America AW139M, the Bell Helicopter UH-1Y Super Huey, the EADS North America AS332 Super Puma and the Sikorsky UH-60M.
Here's where the controversy comes in.
Instead of running a competition, Lt Gen James Kowalski, chief of Global Strike Command, wants to award a sole-source contract to Sikorsky. (See my story from the AFA Air Warfare Symposium.) Competitive protests derailed three attempts by the USAF to award a CSAR-X contract to the Boeing HH-47 Chinook since 2005. The CSAR-X contract would have allowed the USAF to replace the UH-1s for CVLSP at the same time. After waiting six years, Kowalski doesn't want to run the risk of another protest-driven acquisition delay.
Some of Sikorsky's competitors -- in particular, AgustaWesland -- think this strategy is flawed, and argue that the air force risks paying too much of the taxpayers' money on the wrong aircraft.
So what's the right decision: A sole source contract for the UH-60 or a competitive process?
Embraer has released video showing a critical moment of the Super Tucano's recent demonstration to the US Air Force. As Embraer competes against the Hawker Beechcraft AT-6 for a USAF contract, the Super Tucano showed that it can take off from a dirt strip -- and bounce over a criss-crossing concrete runway. The demonstration was held earlier this year in -- and I'm not making up the name of this city -- Truth and Consequences, N.M.
No thanks to some serious airline cancellations, diversions and delays, I made it to Brazil just a few hours before the scheduled roll-out of the ERJ-145 airborne early warning and control platform (AEW&C) for the Indian air force. Here's video of the big moment when the curtain fell.
India will install the Centre for Airborne Surveillance (CABS) phased-array radar on the ERJ-145, but it's not on the jet. A promotional video displayed on the big-screen at the ceremony showed the new CABS antenna for, I think, the first time.
If you can definitively prove the identity of this stealthy unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), I've got a prize for you.
I snapped this photo at the URS booth at the Air Warfare Symposium on Friday. I have showed it to a lot of people since then, and nobody is exactly sure what aircraft it is. I don't know either. It kind of looks like X-45 and X-47, and kind of doesn't. I was told by the URS staff that the image is a photo of a real UAV, but they didn't know what it was either. URS operates test ranges; it doesn't own or build UAVs. It's possible, of course, this isn't a real UAV at all.
A word about the prize: It is, in my opinion, the best piece of swag handed out at the symposium last week, and will likely become a prized collector's item in any discerning weapon system enthusiast's closet/shoebox/etc.
My trip to Brazil has been unexpectedly delayed by an unplanned, extended pit-stop in Caracas, where my Boeing 767 is currently parked with a flat tire. If you detect a note of innuendo in the headline, it's the lack of sleep talking. Meanwhile, what better way to spend my first day in Venezuela than blogging about new bunker-busters! Meet the US Air Force's latest unintentional metaphor of a missile:
An Air Force Research Laboratory fact sheet with a 2011 time-stamp for public release approval tells us that a 2,000lb-class weapon with 5,000lb-class penetration capability could be available within three years.
"Future fighters will be able to deliver bunker-busting capabilities currently associated with the bomber fleet," the fact sheet says.
I found the fact sheet for the High Velocity Penetrating Weapon (HVPW) in the AFRL munitions directorate booth at the Air Warfare Symposium a few days ago. The document reveals the USAF has shifted its focus on next-generation penetrator technology on a couple of different levels.
Force is a function of mass multiplied by velocity. Mass is the key design point for the free-falling, 5,000lb GBU-28 bunker buster and the 30,000lb Massive Ordnance Penetrator.
For the next generation penetrator weapon, the AFRL appears to have shifted the focus to velocity. Packing a solid rocket propulsion system "with mission tailored boost and terminal velocities, intelligent fuzing and optimized explosive," the HVPW blasts into bunkers using speed in place of raw mass.
But the HPVW also may reflect a shift from previous interest in an air-breathing, high-speed penetrator, such as the Mach 3.0 Lockheed Martin revolutionary approach to time critical long-range strike (RATTLRS) demonstrator.
Like RATTLRS, the HPVW is designed to be carried inside the Lockheed Martin F-35's internal weapons bay, but will also enable "other fighter/bombers", the fact sheet says.
It's clear the USAF is in the market for a new penetrator weapon for the next generation bomber. Gen William Fraser, chief of Air Combat Command, actually confused the air force's message in his opening remarks at the symposium on 17 February. Fraser said that the next generation bomber would leverage several existing technologies, and he included the Massive Ordnance Penetrator on the list.
I asked Lt Gen Jim Kowalski, chief of Global Strike Command, about that the next day. He clarified that Fraser means the next generation bomber will leverage the bunker-buster effect of the massive ordnance penetrator, but not necessarily its mass. In the aforementioned force equation, that implies a shift toward higher speed, although Kowalski declined to confirm that theory.
An Air Force Research Laboratory fact sheet with a 2011 time-stamp for public release approval tells us that a 2,000lb-class weapon with 5,000lb-class penetration capability could be available within three years.
"Future fighters will be able to deliver bunker-busting capabilities currently associated with the bomber fleet," the fact sheet says.
I found the fact sheet for the High Velocity Penetrating Weapon (HVPW) in the AFRL munitions directorate booth at the Air Warfare Symposium a few days ago. The document reveals the USAF has shifted its focus on next-generation penetrator technology on a couple of different levels.
Force is a function of mass multiplied by velocity. Mass is the key design point for the free-falling, 5,000lb GBU-28 bunker buster and the 30,000lb Massive Ordnance Penetrator.
For the next generation penetrator weapon, the AFRL appears to have shifted the focus to velocity. Packing a solid rocket propulsion system "with mission tailored boost and terminal velocities, intelligent fuzing and optimized explosive," the HVPW blasts into bunkers using speed in place of raw mass.
But the HPVW also may reflect a shift from previous interest in an air-breathing, high-speed penetrator, such as the Mach 3.0 Lockheed Martin revolutionary approach to time critical long-range strike (RATTLRS) demonstrator.
Like RATTLRS, the HPVW is designed to be carried inside the Lockheed Martin F-35's internal weapons bay, but will also enable "other fighter/bombers", the fact sheet says.
It's clear the USAF is in the market for a new penetrator weapon for the next generation bomber. Gen William Fraser, chief of Air Combat Command, actually confused the air force's message in his opening remarks at the symposium on 17 February. Fraser said that the next generation bomber would leverage several existing technologies, and he included the Massive Ordnance Penetrator on the list.
I asked Lt Gen Jim Kowalski, chief of Global Strike Command, about that the next day. He clarified that Fraser means the next generation bomber will leverage the bunker-buster effect of the massive ordnance penetrator, but not necessarily its mass. In the aforementioned force equation, that implies a shift toward higher speed, although Kowalski declined to confirm that theory.
Please excuse the abrupt drop-off of updates to my live-blog yesterday. I discovered the battery limits of several of my devices. Once I had revived their power sources, I realized I needed a recharge myself.
There are still plenty of blog items left in the queue from the Air Warfare Symposium. I'm readying for a quick trip tonight to Brazil to visit Embraer's newly-launched, standalone defense business, but I'll continue to be posting about AWS here after I reach my hotel south of the equator tomorrow morning.
In the meantime, take a look at this exchange with Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley and reporters yesterday about the possibility of a sixth generation fighter program developing.
Tirpak: We've already seen T-50 and J-20 flight tests but we haven't seen a 6th gen platform.
Donley: I don't think you're going to see a 6th generation fighter program-program any time soon. we do not have the resources available to ramp up and begin a 6th generation fighter while we're still working on 5th [generation]. But we do continue the R&D in Air Force Research Laboratory and other dimensions of our ongoing R&D work relative to advanced components, avionics, weapons that will eventually support that work. So the early pieces of what would constitute a future program are already out there. What we'll be looking at is how to focus that work at a relatively low level on an extended timeline so that we understand how those various research programs are developing and might interact.
Tirpak: Well if not flight tests of an adversary airplane what do you think might be the trigger to say now we definitely need to launch a program of record?
Donley: More money.
Trimble: If you had more money does that mean you would launch a program given the threat?
Donley: The broad message I tried to convey to Congress, the chief and I did yesterday, is that we're living with flat budgets. They may go down a little bit. We don't know if or when those budgets will increase. We already have a significant challenge in front of us to implement the programs that are on our plate. the tanker, the joint strike fighter, the new bomber, the satellite programs. So we have a very full plate of acquisition priorities today. We can already see the future requirements that are not funded -- the T-X, presidential aircraft replacement. We've got some other special sort of niche smaller fleet kind of assets that will eventually need to be replaced. Eventually the minuteman system will need to be replaced. I spoke to that earlier. So that's -- those issues are out there beyond the FYDP and beyond the FYDP-FYDP. Out-years beyond the out-years. We have a lot of issues in front of us. But these are all sort of multi-year efforts.
There are still plenty of blog items left in the queue from the Air Warfare Symposium. I'm readying for a quick trip tonight to Brazil to visit Embraer's newly-launched, standalone defense business, but I'll continue to be posting about AWS here after I reach my hotel south of the equator tomorrow morning.
In the meantime, take a look at this exchange with Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley and reporters yesterday about the possibility of a sixth generation fighter program developing.
Tirpak: We've already seen T-50 and J-20 flight tests but we haven't seen a 6th gen platform.
Donley: I don't think you're going to see a 6th generation fighter program-program any time soon. we do not have the resources available to ramp up and begin a 6th generation fighter while we're still working on 5th [generation]. But we do continue the R&D in Air Force Research Laboratory and other dimensions of our ongoing R&D work relative to advanced components, avionics, weapons that will eventually support that work. So the early pieces of what would constitute a future program are already out there. What we'll be looking at is how to focus that work at a relatively low level on an extended timeline so that we understand how those various research programs are developing and might interact.
Tirpak: Well if not flight tests of an adversary airplane what do you think might be the trigger to say now we definitely need to launch a program of record?
Donley: More money.
Trimble: If you had more money does that mean you would launch a program given the threat?
Donley: The broad message I tried to convey to Congress, the chief and I did yesterday, is that we're living with flat budgets. They may go down a little bit. We don't know if or when those budgets will increase. We already have a significant challenge in front of us to implement the programs that are on our plate. the tanker, the joint strike fighter, the new bomber, the satellite programs. So we have a very full plate of acquisition priorities today. We can already see the future requirements that are not funded -- the T-X, presidential aircraft replacement. We've got some other special sort of niche smaller fleet kind of assets that will eventually need to be replaced. Eventually the minuteman system will need to be replaced. I spoke to that earlier. So that's -- those issues are out there beyond the FYDP and beyond the FYDP-FYDP. Out-years beyond the out-years. We have a lot of issues in front of us. But these are all sort of multi-year efforts.
ORLANDO -- I'm reporting today from the AFA Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, searching for clues on the US Air Force's many new and ongoing acquisition programs. Of great interest are the USAF's plans for the F-35 fighter, KC-X tanker, CSAR-X helicopter, and next generation bomber (which I'd prefer the air force call B-X, but that sounds too much like their on-base department stores).
11:25: We've moved on to long range strike. According to Kowalski, when the air force describes the next generation bomber as "optionally manned", that's a purely non-nuclear, long-range mission.
11:05: Speaking to reporters, Kowalski has clarified his position on an acquisition strategy for CVLSP [see entry below for background]. Decisions about the acquisition strategy will be made by the air force's assistant secretary for acquisition, and there's another "meeting or two" before a decision is made. Kowalski says he wants to circumvent a competition among multiple bidders and award the contract on a sole source basis for the Sikorsky HH-60M. "It accelerates that process and maybe removes some things that -- while nice to do within the acquisition formal structure -- when we're trying to do efficiencies and do things the smartest way," Kowalski says. I asked Kowalski if he has any concerns that taxpayers won't get the best deal without a competition. He replied that the acquisition policy issue is made above his rank, and that his job is to meet an "urgent and compelling need" for new helicopters. "How much longer are we winning to wait and take this risk?" he asked.
10:35: Gen James Kowalski, head of Global Strike Command, has addressed the audience, and pressed his case for replacing UH-1s supporting missile fields with new fleet of about 90 helicopters. "The UH-1s have served the air force well since 1970. But the requirement has changed in the 1990s. After the terrorist attack o 9/11, ... [the air force needs] robust and agile forces for our convoys and misile security. ... With our current fleet we could fail. The risk we assume with this platform is unacceptable. The need for a replacement is both urgent and compelling." Kowalski did not address the fact that the air force has not released an acquisition strategy for the replacement program, which is called the common vertical lift support platform (CVLSP). When he speaks to reporters later, I'm sure this question will come up.
10:23: Hamilton Sundstrand's stand in the exhibit hall offers a throw-back concept for a long range strike platform. I detect a strong resemblance to the McDonnell Douglas/General Dynamics A-12. I'll post a photo later.
9:15: More information from Donley on 6th generation fighters:
"We do not have resources available to ramp up a 6th generation fighter while we're still working on 5th generation. We do continue R&D in AFRL and other dimensions of our ongoing R&D work relative to advance components, avionics, weapons that will eventually support that work. So the early peices of what would constitute a future program are already out there. What we'll be looking at is how to focus that work at a relatively low level on an extended timeline so that we understand how those various research programs are developing and might interact."
9:12: Asked what would trigger a 6th generation fighter program, Donley replied: "More money." I asked if that meant he would launch a program now if his budget was larger, given the threat. Donley replied:
"The broad message ... is we're living with flat budgets ... They may go down a little bit. We already have a significant challenge to implement the programs that are on our plate. ... We have a very full plate of acquistion priorities. We can already see requirements that are not funded -- T-X, presidential aircraft replacement. Some other special niche smaller fleet kind of assets that will eventually need to be repalced. Even the Minuteman will need to be replaced. So that's those issues that are out there byeond the FYDP and beyond the FYDP-FYDP. We have a lot of issues in front of us."
8:59: Speaking to reporters, Donley answers questions about possible KC-X protest:"We have assumed that there might be a protest so we have taken a lot of care and extra time in our source selection process to fully and completely [document] every aspect of the source selection process so everything is fully documented. We certainly hope that the offerors will not decide to protest. We recognize that is their right."
8:30: Donley says the latest F-35 production slowdown has forced a "deeper assessment for F-16 service life extension", but a decision to launch such a program is not necessary for four more years. [Background: In December, Lockheed inducted a USAF F-16 to begin a three-year assessment of the aircraft's remaining service life.]
8:26: Donley on KC-X: "We must recapitalize the tanker fleet. As we posture the future our mobility assets will remain central. In the last year we solicited and received proposals and despite the inadvertent release of some information we're confident the integrity of that process has been maintained and we're positioned to make a source selection soon."
8:20: Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley is delivering the keynote speech.
What-if, what-if, what-if? Some people went to the Moon after asking that question. I just went to my blog. The KC-X contract could be awarded in days or perhaps weeks. I have no idea who will win or lose, but I think I'm ready to play out a what-if exercise. Please, let me know what you think.
1. What if EADS wins the KC-X contract by under-bidding Boeing?
If you're a KC-767 supporter, you may argue disproportionate subsidies gives Airbus an unfair commercial advantage. If you're a KC-45 supporter, you may argue that EADS North America can price more aggressively because it's not offering a paper airplane. The point is, both sides agree it can happen. Sooo...
2. What if Boeing decides NOT to protest?
No matter who wins the KC-X contract the losing bidder will file a protest. That seems to be the widely accepted and perhaps forgiveably cynical viewpoint about the tanker competition. But let's consider, for a moment, the facts.
The previous contract award was overturned by the US Government Accountability Office because the air force made a critical error. After specifically informing Boeing that aircraft size was not a factor in the evaluation, the air force awarded the contract to the then-Northrop Grumman/EADS KC-45 and cited the aircraft's larger size as the reason. According to the GAO, that's not fair.
It may be a lot harder to make that case this time, notwithstanding the mail switcher-oo blunder by the air force in November. It's very clear that this competition is a price shoot-out. To win a protest on similar grounds as the previous case, the losing bidder may be forced to argue the air force decided to buy the most expensive aircraft because it was the most expensive. That seems like a hard-sell.
Of course, there are other considerations. If there is evidence of wrongdoing (remember Darleen Druyun?), that will be automatic grounds to sustain a protest. It's still not clear if the botched shipment by the air force could be a factor. Finally, filing a protest simply as a stalling tactic is possible -- as long as the contractor doesn't mind really offending its biggest customer.
3. What if Congress refuses to approve funding for the KC-X program?
KC-767 supporters may argue that appropriating funds for the KC-45 steals jobs from Americans and rewards a world trade-scofflaw for undermining US competitiveness. KC-45 supporters may argue that EADS North America will be creating thousands of jobs, and revitalizing domestic competition for large commercial aircraft. The point is, Boeing's supporters in Congress may seek to ensure that EADS doesn't win, even if Boeing loses. This would then become a test of political strength. If Northrop was still involved, I'd consider it a fair fight. With EADS standing alone, I'm not so sure.
4. What if Congress, as a compromise, requires the air force to buy both?
This is maybe the biggest what-if of them all. It probably isn't possible until after the retirement of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, an outspoken opponent of a split-buy deal. But such a compromise would probably not be reached in the immediate future anyway.
If there's anything we have learned about the KC-X competition, it is certainly this: Anything can happen.
1. What if EADS wins the KC-X contract by under-bidding Boeing?
If you're a KC-767 supporter, you may argue disproportionate subsidies gives Airbus an unfair commercial advantage. If you're a KC-45 supporter, you may argue that EADS North America can price more aggressively because it's not offering a paper airplane. The point is, both sides agree it can happen. Sooo...
2. What if Boeing decides NOT to protest?
No matter who wins the KC-X contract the losing bidder will file a protest. That seems to be the widely accepted and perhaps forgiveably cynical viewpoint about the tanker competition. But let's consider, for a moment, the facts.
The previous contract award was overturned by the US Government Accountability Office because the air force made a critical error. After specifically informing Boeing that aircraft size was not a factor in the evaluation, the air force awarded the contract to the then-Northrop Grumman/EADS KC-45 and cited the aircraft's larger size as the reason. According to the GAO, that's not fair.
It may be a lot harder to make that case this time, notwithstanding the mail switcher-oo blunder by the air force in November. It's very clear that this competition is a price shoot-out. To win a protest on similar grounds as the previous case, the losing bidder may be forced to argue the air force decided to buy the most expensive aircraft because it was the most expensive. That seems like a hard-sell.
Of course, there are other considerations. If there is evidence of wrongdoing (remember Darleen Druyun?), that will be automatic grounds to sustain a protest. It's still not clear if the botched shipment by the air force could be a factor. Finally, filing a protest simply as a stalling tactic is possible -- as long as the contractor doesn't mind really offending its biggest customer.
3. What if Congress refuses to approve funding for the KC-X program?
KC-767 supporters may argue that appropriating funds for the KC-45 steals jobs from Americans and rewards a world trade-scofflaw for undermining US competitiveness. KC-45 supporters may argue that EADS North America will be creating thousands of jobs, and revitalizing domestic competition for large commercial aircraft. The point is, Boeing's supporters in Congress may seek to ensure that EADS doesn't win, even if Boeing loses. This would then become a test of political strength. If Northrop was still involved, I'd consider it a fair fight. With EADS standing alone, I'm not so sure.
4. What if Congress, as a compromise, requires the air force to buy both?
This is maybe the biggest what-if of them all. It probably isn't possible until after the retirement of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, an outspoken opponent of a split-buy deal. But such a compromise would probably not be reached in the immediate future anyway.
If there's anything we have learned about the KC-X competition, it is certainly this: Anything can happen.
Raytheon has at long last revealed one of its concepts for a next
generation missile to replace the AIM-120 AMRAAM and AGM-88 HARM with a
single weapon. Read my full story about the mock-up here.
And here's a photo showing the competition. Below is one of Boeing's concepts presented as a full-scale mock-up that has made the rounds of trade show exhibits for a few years. Both mock-ups were on display at the Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando.
And here's a photo showing the competition. Below is one of Boeing's concepts presented as a full-scale mock-up that has made the rounds of trade show exhibits for a few years. Both mock-ups were on display at the Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando.
The Chengdu J-20 first flew on 11 January, but it's already found itself in the cross-hairs of the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)'s munitions directorate. A poster at the AFRL stand at the Air Warfare Symposium today shows a Lockheed Martin F-35 firing a short-range missile at a not-too-distant target (see close-up below), with a future long range strike platform in the frame. Nice shot, F-35. It isn't clear from the poster whether the J-20 neglected to fire an SD-10 at Lockheed's second-finest stealth fighter, or if it perhaps already missed on the opening salvo.
ORLANDO -- I'm reporting today from the AFA Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, searching for clues on the US Air Force's many new and ongoing acquisition programs. Of great interest are the USAF's plans for the F-35 fighter, KC-X tanker, CSAR-X helicopter, and next generation bomber (which I'd prefer the air force call B-X, but that sounds too much like their on-base department stores).
1:13: Biggest hall highlight: Raytheon's booth includes a full-scale model for their candidate for a next-generation missile to replace both AMRAAM and HARM. Unlike the rocket-powered model that rival Boeing has displayed at these shows for a couple of years, the Raytheon model includes an air-breathing, ramjet-like inlet. The missile program has various names. Boeing calls it the next generation missile, the air force's budget plan calls it the joint dual role air dominance missile (JDRADM) and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency calls it the triple target terminator (T3).
11:29: The exhibit hall will open in a few minutes. I snuck in during a break this morning for an early reconnaissance. For the first time, there is a real aircraft in the exhibit hall at the Air Warfare Symposium. AgustaWestland has somehow wedged an entire AW139 into the hall. I expect the Italian manufacturer will announce a bid for the combat search and rescue (CSAR-X) common vertical lift support platform (CVLSP) contract. One of their major competitors, a Sikorsky/Boeing team, plans to offer the HH-60M for CSAR-X and the CVLSP.
11:22: I just needed to be more patient. Gen Robert Kehler has said the word "tanker". It wasn't a dramatic reference. He noted the air force needs them.
11:14: Perhaps less surprisingly, the J-20 has come up. A lot. I'll post video later today of comments about PAK-FA and J-20 by Pacific air forces chief Gen Gary North and US Air Forces Europe chief Gen Mark Welsh.
11:10: Amazingly, 130 minutes into major air force symposium, and yet no one has said the words "KC-X" or "tanker"!
10:39: Lt Gen Donald Wurster, head of Air Force Special Operations, notes that he's seen news reports criticizing "indiscriminate fire" by an AC-130. He dryly remarked: "There's no such thing as indiscriminate fire by an AC-130. If you're killed by an AC-130 it's because it was pointed at you."
10:03: Gen William Shelton, head of Air Force Space Command, has sounded the alarm about Lightsquared's newly-licensed business strategy, which by my colleague John Croft wrote about here. Shelton says:
"The Lightsquared business plan calls for some 40,000 towers... Aleading GPS receiver manufacturer just ... has concluded that within 3 to 5 miles on the ground and within about 12 miles in the air GPS is jammed by those towers. The dependencies we've got on GPS for timing things for navigation, for how we live our daily lives, not to mention military applications for GPS, if we allow that system to be fielded and it does indeed jam GPS imagine the impact ... This is just unbelievable ... We're hopeful we can find a soltuion, but physics being physics we don't see a solution right now. ... We're hopeful the FCC does the right thing."
9:50: Bad news for T-X supporters. Gen Edward Rice, chief of Air Education Training Command, met with reporters this morning. He declined to commit to fielding the T-38C replacement by Fiscal 2017, as current plans suggest. Rice also said he thinks that existing technology can meet the air force's requirements for a new advanced jet trainer. However, he didn't rule out buying an all-new aircraft, which Boeing has expressed interest in pursuing.
9:40: Clock it: Within the first 35 minutes of the air warfare symposium, Fraser, head of air combat command, name-checks the Chengdu J-20. He used the new Chinese fighter as a segue to emphasize the importance of funding continuing upgrades for the F-22 and the joint dual role air dominance missile (JDRADM). He also talked about some of the existing technologies that would be leveraged by the next generation bomber. These would include the massive ordnance penetrator (MOP), joint air to surface standoff missile (JASSM) and small diameter bomb (SDB) increment 2, he says. New sensors and directed energy systems also would be integrated on the new bomber, Fraser says.
9:31: While I'm roughing it in Orlando with the Air Force Association, the air force's top leaders will be testifying at the House Armed Service Committee at 1pm. You can watch the webcast here.
9:25am: Gen William Fraser, chief of Air Combat Command, is address a symposium audience numbering about 500 or 600 people.
In a press conference today, EADS North America chairman Ralph Crosby breaks down his analysis of the key factors for both bids in the KC-X competition. He candidly acknowledges the KC-767 has a slight advantage with military construction savings and lifecycle fuel burn costs. Crosby's KC-45 has an "opportunity" to win on price, he says, which the company lowered in a final price revision.
Northrop Grumman has released new footage of the X-47B flight about 11 days ago. It includes a few rare peaks inside the X-47B's internal bays, including landing gear, weapons and electronics. Boeing's Phantom Ray team preparing for first flight in the second quarter is officially on notice. We want good video!
The Obama Administration has sent Congress a request to spend $3.7 trillion in Fiscal 2012, which includes $553 billion in the base defense budget and $117.6 billion for overseas contingency operations. I will be reporting updates as details stream in throughout the day.
5:45: So far, the biggest surprise in my notebook today is about the Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk program. The air force is slashing the Block 40 program in half to buy only 11 aircraft. The savings will pay for improvements to the Raytheon enhanced integrated sensor suite, an electro-optical/infrared camera on the Block 20 and 30s. Reducing the Block 40 program also means the air force will buy fewer synthetic aperture radars -- specifically, the Northrop/Raytheon multi-platform radar technology insertion program (MP-RTIP). The air force has concluded that 11 RQ-4 Block 40s and the Northrop E-8C JSTARS fleet is sufficient for the ground moving target indicator (GMTI) capability.
5:11: More details are trickling out of the line-items. Last year, the air force planned to spend $1.7 billion over the next five years to develop a new bomber. That number has jumped by $2 billion to $3.7 billion. The Navy plans to add $120 million next year to deploy the first squadron of unmanned, carrier-launched, surveillance and strike aircraft in Fiscal 2018. The air force also plans to buy nine light attack armed reconnaissance (LAAR) aircraft next year, which I don't have on my chart below.
3:23: General Electric has issued a statement in response to the opening remarks [see entries 2:07 and 2:13 below] by Gates on the F136 alternate engine for F-35. GE says Gates' claim that terminating the F136 would save $3 billion has been discredited by the Government Accountability Office. GE says the potential cost savings is closer to $1.8 billion. GE adds that Gates "failed to discuss the continuing cost overruns for the lead Pratt & Whitney engine for JSF, which last week grew an additional $1 billion in 2010 and now totals $3.5 billion in just the development phase alone. He failed to discuss a four-year struggling JSF flight test program in which the lead P&W engine has failed to operate throughout out the full flight envelope."
3:03: Here's a breakdown of aircraft quantities by category in the DoD's budget request. This list excludes funding for spares and the request to buy more than 1,200 RQ-11 Ravens.
2:45: Comptroller Hale says the Pentagon is pushing to field the new bomber funded under the Long Range Strike capability in the mid-2020s.
2:29: Big KC-X news. DoD Comptroller Bob Hale says the department "hopes" to award a contract within a month. Government officials have recently declined to set a specific timeline for contract award.
2:18: Earlier I posted a chart showing the DOD plans to spend $44 billion on aircraft procurement in Fiscal 2012. That number reflects the proposed base budget only. If you add aircraft procurement funding in the budget for overseas contingency operations, the number rises to $54.2 billion, according to this document.
2:13: Gates has elaborated on his statement about the F136: "My hope is, quite frankly, is that there would be a debate about this on the floor of the House [of Representatives] this week and that members will address this directly and vote on it. My hope is particularly the new members who are interested in fiscal responsibility will see this as an opportunity to save $3 billion for the taxpayers that can be put to other use."
2:07: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is now answering questions about the defense budget request. He almost immediately took aim at the alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, saying he will look for all legal options to cancel the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 after the continuing resolution expires on 4 March.
1:48: Top-level DoD budget documents have been posted online here.
12:28: For a very top-level view of the defense budget request, read the 6-page summary posted this morning the White House's web site. It covers most of the same information that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates revealed on 6 January, but is strangely silent about the acceleration of the next generation bomber.
12:20: Top-line budget documents show how the DoD has requested $44 billion to spend on aircraft procurement next year. It's always amazing to me that the navy spends more money on aircraft than the air force!
5:45: So far, the biggest surprise in my notebook today is about the Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk program. The air force is slashing the Block 40 program in half to buy only 11 aircraft. The savings will pay for improvements to the Raytheon enhanced integrated sensor suite, an electro-optical/infrared camera on the Block 20 and 30s. Reducing the Block 40 program also means the air force will buy fewer synthetic aperture radars -- specifically, the Northrop/Raytheon multi-platform radar technology insertion program (MP-RTIP). The air force has concluded that 11 RQ-4 Block 40s and the Northrop E-8C JSTARS fleet is sufficient for the ground moving target indicator (GMTI) capability.
5:11: More details are trickling out of the line-items. Last year, the air force planned to spend $1.7 billion over the next five years to develop a new bomber. That number has jumped by $2 billion to $3.7 billion. The Navy plans to add $120 million next year to deploy the first squadron of unmanned, carrier-launched, surveillance and strike aircraft in Fiscal 2018. The air force also plans to buy nine light attack armed reconnaissance (LAAR) aircraft next year, which I don't have on my chart below.
3:23: General Electric has issued a statement in response to the opening remarks [see entries 2:07 and 2:13 below] by Gates on the F136 alternate engine for F-35. GE says Gates' claim that terminating the F136 would save $3 billion has been discredited by the Government Accountability Office. GE says the potential cost savings is closer to $1.8 billion. GE adds that Gates "failed to discuss the continuing cost overruns for the lead Pratt & Whitney engine for JSF, which last week grew an additional $1 billion in 2010 and now totals $3.5 billion in just the development phase alone. He failed to discuss a four-year struggling JSF flight test program in which the lead P&W engine has failed to operate throughout out the full flight envelope."
3:03: Here's a breakdown of aircraft quantities by category in the DoD's budget request. This list excludes funding for spares and the request to buy more than 1,200 RQ-11 Ravens.
| TYPE | NUMBER | COST |
|---|---|---|
| FIGHTERS | ||
| F-35 | 32 | 6,644 |
| F/A-18E/F | 28 | 2,432 |
| EA-18G | 12 | 1,108 |
| Subtotals | 72 | 10,184 |
| ROTORCRAFT | ||
| V-22 | 36 | 2,739 |
| AH-64 | 19 | 620 |
| CH-47F | 47 | 1,360 |
| UH-72A | 39 | 250 |
| UH-60 | 75 | 1,597 |
| HH-60 | 4 | 144 |
| MH-60R | 24 | 1,001 |
| MH-60S | 18 | 483 |
| H-1 | 26 | 799 |
| Subtotals | 288 | 8,993 |
| MANNED ISR | ||
| E-2D | 6 | 1,236 |
| P-8A | 11 | 2,275 |
| Subtotals | 17 | 3,511 |
| UNMANNED ISR | ||
| MQ-1C | 36 | 806 |
| MQ-9 | 48 | 1,069 |
| RQ-4 | 3 | 485 |
| Subtotals | 87 | 2,360 |
| AIRLIFT | ||
| C-130J | 12 | 1,184 |
| C-27J | 9 | 480 |
| Subtotals | 21 | 1,664 |
| TRAINERS | ||
| T-6B | 36 | 270 |
| TOTALS | 521 | 26,982 |
2:45: Comptroller Hale says the Pentagon is pushing to field the new bomber funded under the Long Range Strike capability in the mid-2020s.
2:29: Big KC-X news. DoD Comptroller Bob Hale says the department "hopes" to award a contract within a month. Government officials have recently declined to set a specific timeline for contract award.
2:18: Earlier I posted a chart showing the DOD plans to spend $44 billion on aircraft procurement in Fiscal 2012. That number reflects the proposed base budget only. If you add aircraft procurement funding in the budget for overseas contingency operations, the number rises to $54.2 billion, according to this document.
2:13: Gates has elaborated on his statement about the F136: "My hope is, quite frankly, is that there would be a debate about this on the floor of the House [of Representatives] this week and that members will address this directly and vote on it. My hope is particularly the new members who are interested in fiscal responsibility will see this as an opportunity to save $3 billion for the taxpayers that can be put to other use."
2:07: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is now answering questions about the defense budget request. He almost immediately took aim at the alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, saying he will look for all legal options to cancel the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 after the continuing resolution expires on 4 March.
1:48: Top-level DoD budget documents have been posted online here.
12:28: For a very top-level view of the defense budget request, read the 6-page summary posted this morning the White House's web site. It covers most of the same information that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates revealed on 6 January, but is strangely silent about the acceleration of the next generation bomber.
12:20: Top-line budget documents show how the DoD has requested $44 billion to spend on aircraft procurement next year. It's always amazing to me that the navy spends more money on aircraft than the air force!
| Army | Navy | Air Force | Totals | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aircraft | 5,111 | 15,202 | 10,152 | 30,465 |
| Aircraft modifications | 1,555 | 1,824 | 4,379 | 7,758 |
| Spares and repairs | 3 | 1,312 | 1,032 | 2,347 |
| Support equipment | 583 | 432 | 1,784 | 2,799 |
| Reimbursable obligations | 138 | 5 | 550 | 693 |
| 7,390 | 18,775 | 17,897 | 44,062 |
Shiv Aroor/LiveFist
Unlike most countries, India has no shortage of fighter acquisition programs. Most of the press at Aero India 2011 focused on the Big Three: the long-awaited deliveries of the Tejas light combat aircraft, ever-ongoing competition for the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) contract and the collaboration with Sukhoi on the fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA).
Perhaps the most interesting of the bunch is the fourth -- the advanced medium combat aircraft (AMCA). This represents India's goal replace its Sepecat Jajuars and Dassault Mirage 2000s with an indigenous single-seat fighter with stealth characteristics.
Shiv Aroor's excellent LiveFist blog revealed photos of a new AMCA model on display at the Aero India exhibit hall.
Meanwhile, my Singapore-based colleague, Greg Waldron, scored an interview on AMCA with the head of India's Aeronautical Development Agency. After disclosing that a feasibility study on launching the program will be complete by end-year, PS Subramanyam provided some initial specifications:
It will be a 20t aircraft with a 1,000km range, fitting between the 10t, 500km range of the Hindustan Aeronautics Tejas, and the 30t, 1,500km range of the fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA), an Indian variant of the developmental Sukhoi PAK FA.
The MCA will be a single seat fighter. A two seat version will be developed, but primarily as a trainer. A naval variant is not envisaged, but Subramanyam foresees a requirement for a 20t aircraft for India's future indigenous aircraft carriers. A naval variant of the Tejas was rolled out in mid-2010. It is likely to have its first flight this year.
The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis hosted a press conference about the Fiscal 2012 defense budget this morning. CSBA Senior Fellow Todd Harrison's full analysis is posted online here. Below are some notes from the press conference:
1. Avoiding the F-35 death spiral -- Harrison's position on the DOD's $380 billion F-35 program is complicated. In short, he believes the current program is based on a false premise, but this isn't a good time for DoD officials to set the record straight. Says Harrison:
2. Awarding the KC-X contract -- This is also a complicated problem. It's more than four months into Fiscal 2011, and Congress still has not passed an appropriations bill. This is bad news for the KC-X competition, which is in the final phase of a source selection process. The rules are pretty clear: No appropriations bill, no funding for new programs. There is a possible loophole called the Feed and Forage Act -- a Civil War-era statute that allows combat troops to buy certain things, including transportation, without a specific appropriation. Harrison says the DOD may attempt to invoke the Feed and Forage Act for KC-X, but it's unlikely to work. More likely, he says, is that the USAF may downselect to a single bidder, then wait until Congress passes the next appropriations bill to award a contract. How long will that take? Given the current political statemate, that's anybody's guess.
3. The future of the next-generation bomber -- The US Air Force has previously allocated about $1.7 billion over the next five years to build a long-range strike system. If the Department of Defense is really serious about accelerating the development and fielding of the new bomber, Harrison says, there should be an increase of $1-2 billion in that account. Stay tuned ...
1. Avoiding the F-35 death spiral -- Harrison's position on the DOD's $380 billion F-35 program is complicated. In short, he believes the current program is based on a false premise, but this isn't a good time for DoD officials to set the record straight. Says Harrison:
"It's not realistic to think we'll end up buying the full 2,400 aircraft in the budget right now. [On the other hand], it would not be wise for the DoD this year to signal to our allies that we're going to cut back on our buys. ... That's going to affect a lot of our allies, and that could actually put the program into a death spiral. We don't need to make the decision about cutting the number of JSFs until 2017, 2018 and 2019."
2. Awarding the KC-X contract -- This is also a complicated problem. It's more than four months into Fiscal 2011, and Congress still has not passed an appropriations bill. This is bad news for the KC-X competition, which is in the final phase of a source selection process. The rules are pretty clear: No appropriations bill, no funding for new programs. There is a possible loophole called the Feed and Forage Act -- a Civil War-era statute that allows combat troops to buy certain things, including transportation, without a specific appropriation. Harrison says the DOD may attempt to invoke the Feed and Forage Act for KC-X, but it's unlikely to work. More likely, he says, is that the USAF may downselect to a single bidder, then wait until Congress passes the next appropriations bill to award a contract. How long will that take? Given the current political statemate, that's anybody's guess.
3. The future of the next-generation bomber -- The US Air Force has previously allocated about $1.7 billion over the next five years to build a long-range strike system. If the Department of Defense is really serious about accelerating the development and fielding of the new bomber, Harrison says, there should be an increase of $1-2 billion in that account. Stay tuned ...
It's been nearly one month since first flight of the Chengdu J-20, but we still know so little about the aircraft. China's air force -- the PLAAF -- has remained surprisingly mum on an aircraft they were so willing to flaunt on a Chengu runway for nearly three weeks. We still don't know if the J-20 is officially intended as a one-off technology demonstrator or a developmental prototype, although many observers have assumed the latter. We also don't know what the J-20 is designed to do. Is it an interceptor to replace the Shenyang J-8, or a strike bomber to replace the Xian JH-7? Or is it intended to be both or neither?
Frequent Flightglobal contributor Vladimir Karnozov has published a new feature in the Russian language magazine Air Fleet that attempts to fill the contextual vacuum with a thorough aerodynamic analysis. Dissecting three of the J-20's seemingly peculiar characteristics -- center of gravity in relation to the mean aerodyanmic chord, canards in relation to the nose and overly long air intakes -- Karnozov concludes the J-20 is no subsonic dogfighter. In other words, in an acrobatic game of chicken within an F-22 within visual range, the J-20 is dog-meat.
But Karnozov believes the Chinese are no aerodynamic dummies. Rather, he concludes the J-20 has been optimized for a very specific role: a high-speed, intercept-evading, aircraft carrier-killer. In an English translation of the article that Karnozov kindly contributed to The DEW Liine, he writes:
"In my view the Chinese designers optimized their new jet for M=1.4-1.6. Here comes the clue: the J-20 is a missile launching platform able to evade enemy interceptors by means of a high cruise speed. The J-20 may prove a good interceptor -- very possibly. But its main task seems to be anti-shipping: firing missiles at enemy warships while denying their air defense cover."
Read the translated version of Karnozov's full article on the jump.
Continue reading J-20: China's ultimate aircraft carrier-killer?.
I'm alas not in Bangalore this week for Aero India 2011. My colleagues in Singapore and London have drawn that task (see our full coverage here). But organizers of the concurrent international seminar have helpfully posted webcasts of all the major presentations. Below is a nice start. If you fast forward to about the 48-minute mark, you'll get a detailed briefing on one of Israel's most sophisticated weapon systems -- the IAI/Elta Systems G550 conformal airborne early warning (CAEW). The speaker, Avishai Izhakian, of Elta, also displays a new surveillance aircraft [see above] based on the Bombardier Q-400, which, he says, was offered to several Indian government agencies.
Chinese media sources are reporting that the CAIC Z-10 attack helicopter has become operational, adding yet a new weapon to the People's Liberation Army's growing arsenal.
Several photos have appeared on Chinese web sites showing a Z-10 that is painted dark green and emblazoned with an LH designation signifying assignment to an operational unit.
Hong Kong's second largest newspaper, the Sing Tao Daily, reported earlier this week that US pressure forced the Chinese to change the aircraft's engine. Prototype models of the Z-10 in 2007 showed a Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6 engine, which somehow got diverted to a Chinese military program. The operational version of the aircraft appears to be powered by the same engine in the Z-9, which is a copy of the Eurocopter AS 365N1 Dauphin.
Several photos have appeared on Chinese web sites showing a Z-10 that is painted dark green and emblazoned with an LH designation signifying assignment to an operational unit.
Hong Kong's second largest newspaper, the Sing Tao Daily, reported earlier this week that US pressure forced the Chinese to change the aircraft's engine. Prototype models of the Z-10 in 2007 showed a Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6 engine, which somehow got diverted to a Chinese military program. The operational version of the aircraft appears to be powered by the same engine in the Z-9, which is a copy of the Eurocopter AS 365N1 Dauphin.
This non-dated video appeared on LiveLeak yesterday.
We know the US Army is looking for a new breakthrough in rotorcraft
performance. Helicopters may be the most efficient way to hover and move
vertically, but they are slow and don't go very far. The world's
biggest helicopter makers understand the problem, and have proposed a
wide range of solutions, including coaxial/compound rotors (think
Sikorsky S-97, Piasecki X-49, Eurocopter X3), Bell's proposed hybrid
tandem rotor, and Bell and Boeing's dual and quad tiltrotors. Each
attempts to make the aircraft faster and longer-range, with some level
of trade-off with efficiency in hover.
There is perhaps another answer, and it comes from the perhaps unlikely inventor Douglas Baldwin -- a former member of the F-22 system program office. As the founder of Baldwin Technology, for the last decade Baldwin has spent about $2.6 million of the government's money to develop a concept for a mono tiltrotor, which he claims would be at least half the size, one-third the gross weight and one-third more fuel efficient than current rotorcraft. More interestingly, the mono tiltrotor concept adds a new configuration to the long list of vertical takeoff and landing designs.
There is perhaps another answer, and it comes from the perhaps unlikely inventor Douglas Baldwin -- a former member of the F-22 system program office. As the founder of Baldwin Technology, for the last decade Baldwin has spent about $2.6 million of the government's money to develop a concept for a mono tiltrotor, which he claims would be at least half the size, one-third the gross weight and one-third more fuel efficient than current rotorcraft. More interestingly, the mono tiltrotor concept adds a new configuration to the long list of vertical takeoff and landing designs.
In Fort Lauderdale on Monday, Embraer and new partner Sierra Nevada showed off a Super Tucano that had just completed flight demonstrations for the US Air Force. The light-strike turboprop is bidding for the light air support (LAS) contract against the Lockheed Martin/Hawker Beechcraft AT-6. This particular Super Tucano was on loan to the manufacturer from an unidentified African country (which I believe is probably Burkina Faso), and features an unusually soft paint scheme.
The big news is that Sierra Nevada is Embraer's prime contractor for the bid. Under the US Army's medium altitude reconnaissance and surveillance system (MARSS) contract, Sierra Nevada delivered the aerial surveillance version of the King Air 350s to the Iraqi Air Force. The goals of the LAS program are similar, but the light strike fighters will be delivered to the Afghan Air Force. Contract award for LAS is scheduled in June.
Meanwhile, Sierra Nevada pilot Chris Brayman spoke to reporters about the light strike mission, and why he thinks the Super Tucano is a good fit. See below.
The era of the E-3 AWACS, the E-8C J-STARS and -- presumably -- RC-135 Rivet Joint may be over. Fifth-generation fighters are not only more survivable against a sophisticated opponent, they also have better sensors than the US Air Force's best dedicated air- and ground-warning systems. Anything larger than an F-35 or F-22 should be parked forever. Instead, however, the 707-based sensor fleet is kept alive by a military-industry cabal and by fighter jocks who "pretend" to be scared of a future without at least AWACS watching their backs. Killing AWACS and J-STARS would reap billions in savings, which could be reinvested to buy more F-22s and F-35s.
Wow.
None of the above sentences come from me. Nor are they the ravings of a fringe commentator on the outskirts of the blogosphere. Instead, these are the newly-published opinions of former Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne, who has become a sort of Jimmy Carter of ex-service chiefs by publicly purveying a series of his own inconvenient truths to the military-industrial complex. Last October, Wynne warned of deep ramifications of the decision to cancel the F-22, but also took shots at Pratt & Whitney and Lockheed Martin. It's not clear if Wynne's most recent proposals will be seriously considered by anyone inside the Pentagon's E-ring. But it's worth your time to read what Wynne has to say.
READ: Budget Rationalization of Survivable ISR, by Michael Wynne
Wow.
None of the above sentences come from me. Nor are they the ravings of a fringe commentator on the outskirts of the blogosphere. Instead, these are the newly-published opinions of former Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne, who has become a sort of Jimmy Carter of ex-service chiefs by publicly purveying a series of his own inconvenient truths to the military-industrial complex. Last October, Wynne warned of deep ramifications of the decision to cancel the F-22, but also took shots at Pratt & Whitney and Lockheed Martin. It's not clear if Wynne's most recent proposals will be seriously considered by anyone inside the Pentagon's E-ring. But it's worth your time to read what Wynne has to say.
READ: Budget Rationalization of Survivable ISR, by Michael Wynne
ADVERTISEMENT
Recent Comments