Yesterday, Andrew Mallow, Boeing Phantom Work's program manager for the Phantom Eye hydrogen-powered high altitude demonstrator and Brad Shaw, the project's chief engineer, held a press conference about their aircraft's recent second flight. While the second flight of a company-funded test vehicle isn't normally particularly noteworthy, in the case of the Phantom Eye, this was the aircraft's first successful landing. The unmanned aircraft had crash landed onto a dry lakebed at Edwards AFB, California, earlier on its first flight.

Here is a video of the event.

Mallow says that this time around, everything "worked perfectly" with the aircraft achieving 62 knots and 8000ft during the flight. The successful second flight is due to the efforts of Boeing engineers at Saint Louis, Missouri, who redesigned the aircraft's nose-gear and added other improvements. Many of those improvements are in the plane's software.

Mallow says he had hoped to fly the Phantom Eye again during the weekend, but the weather wasn't looking good. The USAF is clearing some time and range space for the project on Monday, but Mallow doesn't yet have a good idea of what the parameters are going to be for that flight.

The goal for the Phantom Eye is to eventually fly at 65,000ft and push the aircraft's endurance to four days--that's with a payload of 450lbs (but it's not carrying a "specific payload"). An operational version, which would be larger, could potentially fly for up to 10 days, Mallow says.

Mallow says there are interested "customer agencies" and international interest, but nothing concrete at the moment. In recent months, a number of persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms--which were in vogue at the height of the Iran and Afghan wars--have been cancelled. In an era of declining budgets, other than as a one off science project, there are no clear indications as to what the future holds for Phantom Eye.

This Boeing briefing tells you everything you could possibly want to know about Phantom Eye.

HALE.pdf by

Embraer's A-29 Super Tucano has won the US Air Force's Light Air Support contract to supply Afghanistan with an initial batch of 20 aircraft. But compared to the last go-around for this tender (it was originally awarded in December 2011, before Beechcraft protested and sued); the cost is about 20% higher.

My colleague Steve Trimble and I have been looking over the numbers. The only difference immediately apparent is that the new contract adds a "basic aviation training device". That could explain a small part of the difference, but it is very difficult to believe that would raise the cost by 20%. 

So we are left with a few possibilities.  There could be an increase in the scope of the work being performed for things like interim contract support, etc. It could simply be inflation. Or, perhaps Sierra Nevada/Embraer, feeling more confident of victory, had a higher asking price or the USAF was feeling more generous (doubtful). It could also be a combination of all of those factors or something else entirely.

Read the full story here

December 2011:

Contract number: FA8637-12-D-6001

Announced: 30 December 2011

Award: $355,126,541

Work complete: 30 April 2014

LAS: 20

MPS: 6

MDS: 6

Computer-based ground training device: 1

Flight training device: 1

Basic aviation training device: 0

LAS certification: Yes

Interim contract support: Yes

Base activation: Yes

Work split: Sparks, Nevada (55%)/Jacksonville, Florida (45%)

February 2013:

Contract number: FA8637 13 D 6003

Announced: 27 February 2013

Award: $427,459,708

Work complete: April 2015

LAS: 20

MPS: 6

MDS: 6

Computer-based training device: 1

Flight training device: 1

Basic aviation training device: 1

LAS certification: Yes

Interim contract support: Yes

Base activation: Yes

Site surveys: Yes

Work split: None provided

There are few who would dispute that the Congressional sequestration, set to go into effect on 1 March, will be seriously damaging for the US Air Force and the other services. But could it also herald the rebirth of the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor?

Amy McCullough at the Air Force Association's Air Force Magazine spoke to Air Combat Command chief Gen Mike Hostage in Florida last week. She reports that it potentially could. So there is that one piece of potential good news--but that would only happen if the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter were to be cancelled.

Read her article here

"I would have to refurbish the [F-15] and [F-16 fleets] and the legacy hardware I have today. I also have a very small fleet of tremendously capable airplanes in the F-22s. I would push to buy more of those," Hostage told the AFA.  If the F-35 were to be culled off in the wake of the sequester, the USAF would need 225 more Raptors, Hostage says.

 It would be expensive, but necessary to restart production of the stealthy twin-engine air superiority fighter because the fourth-generation fighters are not survivable in an anti-access/area-denial environment.

 "The problem is that all those fourth generation airplanes that my sister services are buying will not survive the fight in the latter half of the next decade. They are not relevant," Hostage says.

But reviving the F-22 is not Hostage's first choice, he says the service must have 1763 F-35s. "Numbers count. It's not just the high capability of our force. You need a quantity of that force in order to be capable," he says.

Was there ever a YF-24? The US Air Force says no. "Our historians said there is no record of there ever having been a YF-24," says Lt Col Max Despain, an Air Force spokeswoman at the Pentagon. "Perhaps it's being mistaken for an X-24 which wasn't a fighter?"

That said, this old bio for a former test pilot, Colonel Joseph A. Lanni lists such an aircraft--which is curious. So there remains a small possibility a YF-24 might have been squirreled away somewhere out in the desert in Nevada. I say that because Lanni, according to his bio, commanded a classified flight test unit between July 1995 and June 1997.

While the entry in the bio might be a typo, it was certainly not the X-24 that Lanni flew. The Martin Marietta X-24A flew during 1963 to 1975, which was well before Lanni became an Air Force pilot. It's also not likely that Lanni flew the Northrop YF-23 either since he was assigned to Eglin AFB in Florida during the time those jets were flying.  

So, what exactly the YF-24 is or was is still kind of a mystery. Your guess is as good as mine.

But I did find this intriguing Boeing Multirole Fighter concept design called the Model-24F, which seems to have preceded the Joint Strike Fighter program. Certainly the design shares traits with earlier Boeing concepts from the Advanced Tactical Fighter program and with later efforts such as the ill-fated X-32 and more recent F/A-XX concepts the company has been showing-off.

From the specifications, it was clear that at the time the Model-24F was being examined, the USAF was looking for a much lighter and much faster aircraft than the current Lockheed Martin F-35. It's apparent from these diagrams that the Boeing Model-24F design was to be a much more slender aircraft than what eventually became the JSF.  It also looks like it was designed to be far more agile--it has provisions for two-dimensional thrust vectoring and some other interesting features. The design matches the Raptor's top speed of about Mach 2.2 though it doesn't cruise supersonically like the F-22.

Here is the full USAF report of the Model-24F.

GetTRDoc (1).pdf by

Boeing had a very small presence at the Air Force Association's Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando. But the company did bring this model of an upgraded F-15E Strike Eagle to the show.

Most immediately noticeable is that the aircraft has its two outer-wing weapons stations activated (which the F-15 always had, but aren't normally used)--something that'll be featured in Saudi Arabia's advanced F-15SA aircraft. A Boeing representative at the show said that the USAF's Strike Eagles would also eventually have those weapons stations activated.

Other features noticeable on the model are the aircraft's active electronically scanned array radar and what appear to be General Electric F110 engines, which would seem to indicate it's supposed to be representative of a Saudi Arabian F-15SA. Boeing, however, says it's just a generic representation of any upgraded Strike Eagle. Whatever the case, it's still pretty damn cool. 

Now if only there was some way I could get a hold of that model, I think it would look awesome in my living room.

If the Congressional sequester goes into effect on 1 March as is now expected, the US Air Force may be forced to take drastic actions which will severely impact the readiness of the combat air forces for years to come.

Those draconian actions include cancelling major large force exercises like Red Flag and Northern Edge, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told an audience at the Air Force Association's Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando this past Friday. The majority of the USAF's fighter and bomber wings will run out money to keep flying by mid-May, Donley adds.

But it might get worse still.

"Fewer flying hours will also lead to cancellation of some advanced training and weapons instructor courses," Donley says. Additionally, instructor pilot upgrades and other advanced training would also be frozen--but the service is trying to preserve the undergraduate pilot training course.

The training stand-downs could take six months to a year to recover--but to "suboptimal levels," Donley says. Getting pilots back up to the "desired level" of proficiency would take much, much longer.

The impact of shuttering the USAF's elite Weapons School--even temporarily--will be nothing short of disastrous, numerous officers are telling me. The institution serves as repository of knowledge and produces the service's tactical experts.

"The impact will be generational," one senior officer says. "Gutting our readiness will happen in a heartbeat, rebuilding it will take a decade."

As one retired flag officer once told me: "The only thing more expensive than a first-rate air force is a second-rate one."

This year's Air Force Association Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando was understandably downbeat. Fewer US Air Force officials and their industry counterparts showed up due to the current fiscal climate. But some contractors did show off their hardware. Their efforts paid-off, because while fewer service officials attended, many top USAF officers did make the journey to Florida.

Beechcraft was one contractor that did make an effort to show-off their wares. Together with partner CAE, the company showed-off a sim for its AT-6 Texan II turbo-prop trainer/light attack plane. Beechcraft hopes to sell the Afghan air force 20 of the machines under the Light Air Support tender, which is being administered by the USAF. The service was originally going to announce the winner of the contract today, but that's now been pushed off until the February 27. Beechcraft's AT-6 is facing off against Sierra Nevada/Embraer's A-29 Super Tucano.

This sim, according to CAE's engineers, replicates the cockpit of the AT-6 almost perfectly. Most of the components are direct copies of the real aircraft's systems except that they are not flight rated. The computer flight model is close, but not quite correct, the engineers told me--there is a bit of Dutch roll and adverse yaw that's not present in the real thing. It's actually quite noticeable when "flying" the sim as I saw when I flew it. In the video below, one CAE's engineers was kind enough to fly a quick demo for the DEW Line.

Staying on the topic of sims, BAE Systems also showed-off some of the high fidelity graphics capabilities they expect will be part of their T-X jet trainer pitch. That's of course assuming the USAF can afford to pay for the T-X in this brutal fiscal environment. We'll see.

Moving onto engines, Pratt & Whitney had their top executives present. I sat down with Bennett Croswell to talk about his company's efforts to develop a new variable cycle engine for the Air Force Research Laboratory's Adaptive Engine Technology Development (AETD) program. More on that Monday probably.

General Electric brought this model of the F110, however, I never did manage to track down any of their execs. But they are also working on an AETD variable cycle engine.

Lockheed Martin displayed a model of its prospective Cuda air-to-air missile at the Air Force Association's Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando earlier today. The company had some additional details about their new weapon, but the display itself was actually tucked away in a distant corner of their booth.

Read the full story here

This is a picture of the product card that I took--apologies for the poor image quality.

US Air Force Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptors and UK Royal Air Force Eurofighter Typhoons (FGR4) are participating in Exercise Razor Talon prior to their deployment to the massive Red Flag war-game at Nellis AFB, Nevada, later this month.

These photos were taken over Atlantic near Seymour Johnson AFB, North Carolina, where the exercise took place.

The exercises are mutually beneficial to both the USAF's 27^th Fighter Squadron flying the Raptor and to the British, since that nation is still America's closest ally. My former colleague Brian Everstine at Air Force Times/Defense News recently wrote an excellent article on what the training benefits are for both sides.

A couple of notable excerpts:

"It's a pretty cool opportunity," said Capt. Austin Skelley, an F-22 pilot with the 27th Fighter Squadron who helped plan the joint exercise, called Western Zephyr. "People are really excited and eager to fight with and against Typhoon."

The Typhoon is a unique airframe from the F-22 pilot's perspective, offering advanced avionics, improved situational awareness and plenty of power in thrust and speed that pilots don't encounter when going head-to-head against F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s, Langley pilots said.

"The Typhoon offers the F-22 a unique capability that sort of bridges the gap between the fourth and fifth generation," Skelley said.

Another one that might be of interest given some of the posts of recent weeks:

While the fighters are the most advanced from their respective countries, they have different abilities and advantages. The agility of the F-22 is what first jumped out to Wells, he said.

"Raptor has vector thrust: Typhoon doesn't," he said. "What the aircraft can do, it's incredible. The Typhoon just doesn't do that."

The Typhoon's strength, however, is in both carrying weapons and deploying them. With its two Eurojet EJ200 turbojet engines producing 20,000 pounds of thrust each and the distinctive wing and canard layout, the jet is strong in both its air-to-ground and air-to-air formats no matter what it's carrying. In its air-to-ground role, the jet flies with four beyond-visual-range missiles, a Lightning 3 designation pod, extra fuel tanks, [4 X 1000 (there is a slight copy error in the original)]-pound bombs and two short-range missiles. These can be aimed by the pilot looking in the direction of an adversary and targeting through a helmet-mounted system, Wells said.

"As we bolt things to the jet ... it still flies like a Typhoon," he said. "High and fast, and that's where she loves to be. She loves being at 40,000 feet and supersonic. It's brilliant in terms of performance and getting places."

The first production model Lockheed Martin F-35C carrier variant flew its first sortie Thursday, 15 February, 2013. When it is delivered later this year, the aircraft will be assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron-101(VFA-101), which is stationed with the US Air Force's 33^rd Fighter Wing at Eglin AFB, Florida. Like the other units at the base, the USAF's 58^th Fighter Squadron and the US Marine Corps VMFAT-501, VFA-101 is a training unit or Fleet Replacement Squadron in naval parlance.

Meanwhile, the USAF is looking for a new communications gateway so that its fourth and fifth generation fighters can talk to each other electronically. Read that story here.

This CCTV video shows some detailed footage of China's WZ-10 attack helicopter, built by Changhe Aircraft Industries Corporation.

Photo by Shimin Gu

The helicopter has been in service for a couple years and is in many ways China's answer to the Boeing AH-64D/E Apache gunship. While the WZ-10 looks impressive, it's hard to say how effective the aircraft's weapons and avionics are. As with everything dealing with China's military hardware, there is little in the way of hard concrete evidence but a lot of conjecture.

Likewise, it's hard to say how much of the aircraft is truly indigenous. Reports suggest China received substantial foreign assistance to develop the aircraft's rotors, transmission and engines. Nonetheless, it's still a remarkable achievement to have put this thing together.

At least for the prototypes, Pratt & Whitney Canada got itself into some hot water with the US government for illegally transferring modified software to China that allowed Beijing to use the company's PT6C-67C turboshaft engines to test fly the developmental aircraft.  Ultimately, Pratt & Whitney had to pay a $75 million fine to settle the case.

Production versions of the WZ-10 are said to be powered by a pair of Wo Zhou-9s, a version of the MTU Turbomeca Rolls-Royce MTR390. But it's hard to know for sure.

The Pentagon is creating a new medal for military personnel who contribute to combat operations, but are physically removed from the fight. That's including the operators of unmanned aircraft like the General Atomics MQ-1 Predator or MQ-9 Reaper.

US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced the creation of the medal on 13 February, 2013.

"I've always felt, having seen the great work that they do, day in and day out, that those who performed in an outstanding manner should be recognized.  Unfortunately, medals that they otherwise might be eligible for simply did not recognize that kind of -- of contribution," Panetta says.  "And for that reason, recognizing these technological advances, I'm pleased to announce that I have formally approved the establishment of a new distinguished warfare medal.  The medal provides distinct department-wide recognition for the extraordinary achievements that directly impact on combat operations, but that do not involve acts of valor or physical risk that combat entails." 

With the creation of "the distinguished warfare medal the department now has that ability, and it will be reserved only for those who have met the highest standards," Panetta continues. "This award recognizes the reality of the kind of technological warfare that we are engaged in, in the 21st century."

Astonishingly, as reported by Gannett Government Media (aka Defense News, Army, Navy, Navy, Marine Corps and Military Times), the new medal is going to be placed above the Bronze Star with Valor device in the order of precedence--i.e. it ranks higher than that medal in prestige. For the flying services, the new medal ranks just below the Distinguished Flying Cross.

As my old colleague Andrew Tilghman reports: The order of precedence came as a surprise to Doug Sterner, a military medals expert and the curator of the Military Times Hall of Valor, the largest database of military medal recipients.

"It's got me puzzled," Sterner said in an interview Wednesday. "I understand the need to recognize the guys at the console who are doing some pretty important things. But to see it ranking above the Bronze Star [with] V?"

The announcement was met overwhelmingly with disdain by a number of military personnel I talked to, though most agree that unmanned aircraft operators do need to receive some kind of recognition--just not this.

This awesome video basically sums up the situation--though the US Air Force uses trailers for its crews. The US Navy hopes to build an actual building for its Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton operators.

A version of the article below ran in Flight International last week, but due to space constraints we had to cut it down considerably.

US defense experts consulted by Flightglobal are united in their opinion that Iran's recently unveiled Qaher-313 "stealth aircraft" is merely a mock-up designed for domestic propaganda rather than a flying prototype as claimed by that nation.

"I suspect it's for domestic consumption, and then you may be able to influence a few people in the neighborhood," says Dan Goure, an analyst at the Lexington Institute. "People who are not all that familiar with this kind of stuff might buy into it very easily."

Air power analyst Mark Gunzinger at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments agrees that the aircraft is a mock-up, but notes that the roll-out of the Qaher-313 is indicative of Iran's greater geopolitical ambitions. "It is another indication that Iran is continuing to pursue military capabilities, including WMD [weapons of mass destruction], to support their anti-access strategy," he says.

Nonetheless, Gunzinger is sure the Qaher-313 is nothing more than a mock-up.  "Anyone can build a mock up.  I will believe it's a real jet when I see it fly," Gunzinger says.  "Even if it does make it off the ground, I doubt that it will have stealth characteristics."

Goure agrees. "It looks like a prize in a Cracker Jack's box," he says.

One aerospace engineer with experience on stealth aircraft also says that the Qaher-313 looks like a mock-up. The aircraft's planform alignment, which is crucial for stealth, is questionable, he says. And while the aircraft looks like it uses a blend of faceting with non-compound curves, it may not be intentional. "I would bet the "facets" are really just structural vestiges showing through the OML [outer mold line] of the skin," the engineer says. Additionally, there are problems with the shapes of the inlet and exhaust. "Tons of corner reflectors and other ugliness in these areas," the engineer says. "Not to mention potential aero issues at higher AoAs [angles of attack]."

Aerodynamically, the Qaher-313 is almost certainly subsonic if it is indeed a real design. "Looks like the basic Clark-Y airfoil of the 1930s and very subsonic," the engineer says. "Also, all of the wing join areas look like they were faired with modeling putty." The leading edges of the wing are very rounded and the airfoil is very thick, he says. Those features are "very non-LO [low observable]". 

The drooped winglets are something of a mystery.  "With twin vertical stabs, there should be plenty of directional stability, all these do--other than look cool-- is create interesting yaw-roll coupling issues with little perceivable benefit," the engineer says.  If the control surfaces on the fixed canards are "deflected at all in flight, [they] would create nice big [radar] reflector," he adds. 

The surface finish looks like painted fiberglass or Dacron fabric. "Definitely looks like paint instead of an LO [low observable] coating," he says. The aircraft also seems to lack apertures for anything including communications, sensors, access panels, or fuel. There are no weapons bays that are visible.

Moreover, the aircraft is very small, and there does not appear to be space for such hardware in any case. "Clearly, they haven't mastered the scale part of it, it's supposed to be one-to-one, not one-to-two" says Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at the Teal Group. "In terms of there being any content, it makes the [Chengdu] J-20 look like the [Lockheed Martin] F-22." Aboulafia says jokingly he can only imagine what the artist's rendition might have looked like. "At least put an engine nozzle on it," he says.

If there is indeed an engine installed or which can be installed, the only likely contender is a reverse engineered version of the General Electric J85 turbojet, most likely without an afterburner. Iran acquired the engine design from versions of the Northrop F-5 that it operates. Variants of the J85 engine have been used in small jet aircraft around the world.

Moving onto the cockpit, "the canopy, aside from lacking any LO or RF [radio frequency] coating, looks like it's made from that same polystyrene they make the ones for plastic model airplanes," the engineer says. The canopy does not appear to have any sort of forward latch mechanism or locking feature around its edges.  "Can't believe it would stay on in flight," the engineer notes.

The cockpit appears to be furnished with avionics from the home-built aircraft market. Some of the components seem to include electronic flight information systems display including a Dynon EFIS-D100, a pair of Dynon EFIS-D10As and a VHF Garmin navcom along with other products built by the two companies.

There are a number of countries that have attempted to develop advanced fighter aircraft and have failed, Goure says. There is no evidence to suggest that Iran has the technological wherewithal to build an advanced stealth aircraft, he says. "We're fairly familiar with their technology base for this, they don't have the engine technology, they don't have the materials technology, and they don't have the computer technology."

In order to develop a stealth aircraft, one must possess advanced detection capabilities including powerful radars and algorithms to validate the design. Stealth does not merely encompass the outer mold line of an aircraft, internal bulkhead and other equipment have to be carefully positioned, Goure says. "If you're going to build something like this, you sort of have to have all of the pieces," he says. "You have to have all of the analytical and sensor technologies, it's not good enough to have the aircraft technologies."

Retired US Air Force Lt Gen David Deptula sums up the Qaher-313 in one word: "Laughable."

Check out this awesome video from the cockpit of a VFA-103 Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet flying off the deck of USS Dwight D Eisenhower.  This video was produced by Carrier Strike Group 8 during the summer of 2012. But if the dire predictions of what might happen under sequestration come to fruition, we may not see many more videos like this in the near future.

Earlier today during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Adm. Mark E. Ferguson III, vice chief of naval operations, said that the Navy would have to stop refueling two carriers and defer construction of a third. Procurement of aircraft would have to be cut, and maintenance deferred. Training and readiness would basically go down the tubes.

"We anticipate reducing flight operations and steaming days for our deployed forces, canceling deployments, deferring more maintenance on ships and aircraft, suspending most non-deployed operations such as training and certifications, along with other cost-cutting measures," he said. "We will immediately erode the readiness of the force."

If the full sequestration goes into effect, that is 10% cuts to the Defense Department budget every year for the next 10 years, the Navy will lose 50 ships. The Navy will lose two carrier strike groups and a "proportional number" of expeditionary strike groups.

You can download the Admiral's prepared testimony here.

On November 16, 2010, Capt Jeff Haney was killed when the bleed-air system in his F-22 Raptor malfunctioned and ultimately shutdown the jet's life support system. Even though Haney had no oxygen, and the emergency oxygen system was difficult to use (so difficult that it had to be redesigned), the USAF blamed him for the crash because he wasn't able to react to the situation quickly enough. Now the Pentagon's Inspector General has come to conclusion that the Accident Investigation Board report's conclusions are not supported by the facts. The USAF is, of course, sticking to its story.

Here is the report--see it for yourselves and come to your own conclusions.

DODIG-2013-041.pdf by

Here is the story

David Cenciotti, who does an outstanding job over at his Aviationist blog, has managed to get a hold of a Eurofighter test pilot to respond to some of Lockheed Martin's claims about the F-35's kinematic performance vis-à-vis a combat configured Typhoon.  I'd tried to get a hold of Eurofighter, but to no avail.

Read Cenciotti's story here. 

You can read my original story here.

Anyways, the Typhoon has always been an aerodynamic sports car of sorts, so I'm not particularly surprised by what Cenciotti's source had to say. But, until we know more about the F-35 from the operational testers at Edwards and Nellis, it's hard to say for sure how the jet really performs in an operational setting. Read that story here

I remember talking to the Luftwaffe's Col Andreas Pfeiffer, commander of Jagdgeschwader 74, in Alaska last year during the Red Flag-Alaska exercises, and he was telling me about how the Typhoon could maintain Mach 1.2 or so (if I remember right, it was definitely at a good supersonic clip though) without afterburners even with the two external tanks, pylons and what not they were carrying. And if there is one thing you can say about the Typhoon, it's that it's fast.

The only thing I take issue with in Cenciotti's post is this minor point, but it could be that he just glossed over it for the sake of simplicity: he refers to the Typhoons taking on the Raptors at Red Flag, that's not entirely correct. The Raptors and Typhoons were both on the Blue side during the actual Red Flag-Alaska exercise; however they participated in a series of exercises prior to the Red Flag called Distant Frontier which included some basic fighter maneuvers encounters with the F-22.

In summary, the Typhoon is a magnificent aircraft, especially for the air superiority role. Now, if someone would let me fly one, of course, I'd be delighted.

On a related but different topic, Northrop Grumman released this video of the F-35's AN/AAQ-37 Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System. The company has added hostile ground fire detection to the AAQ-37's capabilities--they detected and located tanks that were firing live rounds during the run-up to an exercise.

"While being flown on Northrop Grumman's BAC 1-11 test aircraft, the DAS detected and located tank fire from an operationally significant distance," the company says. "The system is able to simultaneously detect and pinpoint the location of rockets and anti-aircraft artillery fired in a wide area."

"The DAS continues to show its ability to gather and analyze data for a wide range of missions not initially contemplated for this sensor system," says Mark Rossi, Northrop Grumman's DAS business area director. "These flight test results are just the latest example of the situational awareness capability of this revolutionary technology in action."

Northrop adds "although hostile fire detection is not an F-35 requirement for the DAS, the system design makes it ideal for this mission. This inherent capability enables DAS to harvest, process and deliver key battlespace information to ground forces and other aircraft autonomously, without the need for cueing or increasing pilot workload."

Pilots at Eglin AFB, Florida, are starting to do a little bit of tactical training in the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

"I was fortunate to be part of the first USAF F-35A four-ship formation this morning," Col Andy Toth, commander of the 33^rd FW told me on Jan 31 (it's been a very busy week). "We conducted a tactical intercept mission versus F-16s and it went well."

 Toth adds, "One of our newest instructors, Maj Scout Johnston did a great job of leading the WG/CC, Sq/CC and deputy operations group commander on the four-ship mission."

Four-ships are actually part of how a normal fighter wing operates, but given the relative immaturity of the F-35 as a weapons system, it was a morale booster for the airmen at the 58^th Aircraft Maintenance Unit to be able to do that. They're starting to learn how to take care of the jet themselves without help from Lockheed Martin.

"We are learning the ins and outs of the aircraft and showing we can handle the maintenance on our own," says Senior Master Sgt. Eric Wheeler, a production superintendent at the maintenance unit.

I also wrote recently about the F-35's performance in the air--you can read that story here.

Right now, most of the information on the F-35 comes from the contractor, the program office, the occasional interview with a military test pilot attached to the JSF program, or reports put out by the Pentagon.

Pilots at Eglin can't really say since they are allowed to operate only in a very restrictive envelope, but Andy Toth was able to say this: "I will say in afterburner during takeoff, the acceleration is impressive and if you do not pull the nose up significantly higher than I'm used to in an Eagle or a [F-16] Viper, you could over-speed the gear very quickly and the retract 'in the well' speed is 300 knots versus 250 in the Eagle."

During the interview with Lockheed, I noticed something curious:

If one were to overlay the energy-maneuverability (E-M) diagrams for the F/A-18, F-16 or Typhoon over the F-35's, "It is better. Comparable or better than every Western fourth-generation fighter out there," Flynn says. That applies even to the F-35 B and C models with their respective 7g and 7.5g limits. "You're not going to see any measurable difference between the aircraft," Flynn says. In terms of instantaneous and sustained turn rates and just about every other performance metric, the F-35 variants match or considerably exceed the capabilities of every fourth-generation fighter, he says.

However, about a year and half ago, I spoke to Lt Col Matt Kelly, a US Marine Corps test pilot at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, when I was still at Defense News. Read the old DN story here.

Operational pilots should be thrilled with the F-35's performance, Kelly said. The F-35 Energy-[Maneuverability] diagrams, which display an aircraft's energy and maneuvering performance within its airspeed range and for different load factors, are similar to the F/A-18 but the F-35 offers better acceleration at certain points of the flight envelope.

"The E-M diagrams are very similar between the F-35B, F-35C and the F/A-18. There are some subtle differences in maximum turn rates and some slight differences in where corner airspeeds are exactly," Kelly said.

The two accounts don't seem to quite mesh, unless there has been some sort of substantial new discovery during that timespan that accounts for it. I believe Kelly was talking about a relatively clean classic F/A-18 Hornet--if memory serves--so that could account for part of it. Later that same year, Kelly again told me the F-35B and C both fly similarly to the Hornet when I was onboard the USS Wasp. And, I heard Kelly tell another senior Marine aviator stationed at the Pentagon that the F-35B flew like a Hornet during that same visit to the ship.  

I suppose it could be possible a loaded up Typhoon offers performance comparable to a relatively clean Hornet, but I don't know that for a fact. I think we're missing some important information in this case and hard numbers are something no one is willing (with good reason) to provide.

We'll find out soon enough once the fleet aviators get their hands on the full envelope jets.

Photos by Capt Edward Schmitt, flight doctor, 58 Fighter Squadron.

With the new deadline for the Congressional sequestration budgetary maneuver arriving in less than a month, the US military services are already starting to take actions which are starting to bite.   But if sequestration were actually to happen, it would get much worse.

Among the US Air Force programs that are likely to be affected are the Lockheed Martin F-35, Boeing KC-46 and General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper.  Sustainment activities would also be cut back for these platforms: C-17, A-10, C-130, KC-135, F-15, F-16, B-52, and E-8 JSTARS. Flight training would take a huge hit. And, it would also be a bad time to be a civilian employee of the USAF and the other services--furloughs all around.

Read the Flightglobal story here.

This here is the original USAF memo to the Congress.

airforce-sequestration.pdf by

But if you want to know about sequestration in more detail, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments' Todd Harrison pretty much explains the whole deal here. He's the go to guy here in DC for this sort of stuff.

Additionally, since the Pentagon's DOT&E report revealed that the F-35's specifications are being reduced, Lockheed has come out to defend their jet. The company says that all versions of the jet will fly rings around the competition when everyone is loaded up in a combat configuration. However, others disagree vehemently.  It's up to you who you want to believe.

Anyways read the story here

We've also done some further analysis on the Iranian Qaher-313 "stealth aircraft", but you'll have to register here to see that. It's free, so there is no skin off your back.

Iran has unveiled what it says is a new stealth fighter called the Qaher-313. Perhaps, this is just me as a product of the 1980s, but this aircraft looks a lot like an old GI Joe toy. Read the full story here

The Iranians would have you believe this is some sort of highly advanced stealth strike aircraft that they've already designed, built and flown. But this, frankly speaking, looks unimpressive--and if I had to put money down on it, I say it's a mock-up. I suppose it could be some sort of test bed, but I'm highly skeptical.

So the first thing to notice is that this machine is tiny, and the entire aircraft is made up of faceted panels like the old 1970s-era Lockheed Have Blue or F-117. The skin panels look very much like they're made of the same fiberglass [an earlier version said carbon fiber, which was my error] sheets a friend of mine acquired a few years ago to build his sailboat (though this stuff here appears to be of lesser quality). So that doesn't inspire much confidence.

The configuration looks a lot like the bizarre illegitimate love child of a Have Blue and Boeing Bird of Prey with some added canards. The canards are fixed in place, but do have flight control surfaces installed. It'll be interesting to see what kind of pitch authority they get out of those. In some ways, this aircraft also reminds me of the old McDonnell Douglas X-36 unmanned subscale test bed--if only due to the tiny size (kidding, more the planform).

The most interesting part is the exhaust, it's hard to say for sure if there is an engine installed or not. If there is, it's small and probably not equipped with an afterburner (and I suspect they'll run into some serious problems with heat in either case). That matches up with the small dorsally mounted twin air inlets up front just behind the canopy.

Given the types of engines Iran has access to--and can reasonably reverse engineer--one can deduce that the power plant is a version of the General Electric J85. The J85 is the only engine that they can probably get a hold off that is small enough to fit into an aircraft so diminutive--not to mention get enough air from those tiny inlets. The fact that those air inlets are on top of the fuselage would also suggest the Qaher-313 is not really a fighter per se since that would negatively impact high angle of attack performance. Also those airfoils look pretty thick, so I'd bet this thing is subsonic... That points to it being a strike platform if it is indeed a real combat aircraft.

Being so small, despite the Iranians' insistence that this is a genuine combat aircraft, there can't be that much room for fuel, let alone weapons, onboard. There doesn't appear to be much room for avionics such as radar or anything else for that matter. There also appears to be few, if any, access panels, which is weird.

The cockpit, if you take a closer look, doesn't really look like it's finished. If anything, from inside the cockpit, this jet's instrument panel looks like it was lifted from a newish-model general aviation aircraft. There appears to be no provisions for a head-up display--which is typically found in most modern fighter aircraft except the Lockheed Martin F-35, which has a helmet-mounted display. The canopy seems to be made of poor quality Plexiglas with some really bad optical qualities. Check out the distortion looking through the transparency below.

But nonetheless, there is a video (check out the link to the main story above) that allegedly shows this thing flying. Time will tell if this is a serious development or not--I suspect not, but we'll see.