Recently in Big Defense Category

Don't expect a tanker version of Boeing's 787 Dreamliner anytime soon, says Jim Albaugh--the company's commercial aircraft division chief. But, of course, we knew that since the 767-derived KC-46 is going to be in production until at least 2028 with 179 examples built.

But, as the US Air Force admits, the KC-46 design will be pretty long in the tooth by then--which is why the service is keeping its options open for the subsequent KC-Y and KC-Z tanker programs. And 179 aircraft only covers the replacement of one third of the antique Boeing 707-derived KC-135 fleet.  (Read my KC-46 special here)

But there might never be a tanker or any other military derivative of the 787 period. Unlike the 707 and 767, which were purposely overdesigned with extremely rugged airframes, the 787 has little in the way of excess structure.

"We're pretty full-up over the next nine years building airplanes to deliver to domestic customers and international customers," Albaugh says. "I'm not certain this airplane lends itself to being a derivative because this is an airplane that we took a lot of weight out of. We didn't overdesign this airplane, like the 707 is over-designed or the 767. I'm not ruling it out, but right now our focus is on commercial airplanes."

But moreover, the 787 has a composite fuselage. While industry has a very solid understanding of what happens when one cuts metal out of an aluminum fuselage, the same can't be said of carbon-fiber composites. That's probably another factor playing into this.

Here is a link to our 787 special--mostly written by our dearly departed (to the Wall Street Journal that is...) colleague Jon Ostrower.

Chris Kubasik will be anointed as Lockheed Martin's new CEO come 1 January 2013, but current CEO Bob Stevens will stay on as chairman of the board for another year until 1 January 2014. Kubasik is currently the chief operating officer and president of the massive defense giant.

Here is a video of the F-35C flying in formation. Sorry, there is no version without the music:

DARPA's HTV-2 hypersonic test vehicle crashed due to materials being worn off the airframe as a faster rate than predicted. But on the good news side, the aircraft proved to be more controllable than the engineers had expected. The DARPA study is being used to inform the US Defense Department's on-going Conventional Prompt Global Strike efforts--which would hit a target anywhere on Earth in under an hour.

That being said, an operational weapon could potentially run into the billions of dollars per shot given the cost of developing and fielding even a small number of such systems. And, of course, there is the alternative of a conventionally-tipped ICBM, but that could be mistaken for an actual nuclear missile by other powers--which would be bad. And still pretty expensive probably...

So, is it worth the time, effort and money? Discuss.

Also here is a link to the article.

The US Air Force is asking industry for information on how to increase the Bell UH-1N's endurance, range, speed, all-weather capability, survivability and equip it with modernized communication and navigation system capabilities. The USAF wants that requirement filled in fiscal years 2014 to 2018.

Given that laundry list, it sure sounds like the USAF basically wants to recreate the US Marine Corps' new Bell UH-1Y Venom--sans sensor ball. The Yankee has all of the characteristics that the USAF lists in its new Request for Information...

The Marines are buying new-build "Yankees," but had originally wanted to remanufacture their old Novembers.

Incidentally, the USAF is already taking on some of the Marines' cast off UH-1Ns... 

This new Air Force endeavor basically replaces the service's Common Vertical Lift Support Platform (CVLSP) effort that was killed in the fiscal year 2013 budget proposal.

But the Air Force still has its Combat Rescue Helicopter (CRH) program, which it is working on... However, it does have a long and storied history of bungling helicopter acquisitions (And pretty much everything else too--LAS anyone? The KC-46 looks hopeful--for now).

So place your bets... will the Air Force drop the ball yet again on the CRH, or is it quadrillionth time lucky?

Lockheed Martin is being awarded a $258.8 million not-to-exceed undefinitized modification to the previously awarded low rate production contract for the F-35.

The contract modification to the fifth production lot adds one additional F-35A conventional take-off and landing aircraft for the US Air Force, and one additional F-35C carrier variant aircraft for the US Navy.  According to a US Department of Defense release the modification includes undefinitized line items, which will be definitized as fixed-price-incentive-firm.

The low rate initial production (LRIP) V contract has fluctuated before. Back in October 2011, the Department of Defense reduced the LRIP V procurement amount by five aircraft. That cut some combination of F-35As and F-35Cs but preserved three orders for the F-35B.

That meant the LRIP V order droped from 35 to 30 aircraft.

Lockheed offers an explanation.

"The president's budget calls funding for up to 32 jets in LRIP 5. The UCA signed in December was for only 30 jets," says company  spokeswoman Laurie Quincy. "This action today funds two additional jets equaling the President's budget proposal. We look forward to continuing to work with our government customer to finalize details for a LRIP contract."

Could live virtual constructive (LVC) training help reduce some of the F-35's soaring costs? It might, if the US Air Force, US Navy and USMC didn't need to continually cycle through fourth-generation machines or have other F-35s act as "Red Air" during training sorties. But what is clear is that the new technology will help US tactical air forces practice for beyond visual range fights much more effectively than ever before--especially if you're a Raptor driver and nobody wants to play with you (because it's not much fun dying before you even know you're under attack). However, you still need other jets to train against for those within visual range fights...

Read all about it here.

In the meantime, F-35 drivers USAF Lt Col Eric Smith and US Marine Corps Maj Joseph "O.D." Bachmann have been busy at the 33^rd Fighter Wing. Here they are flying in formation... 

And doing aerial refuelings...  Though this is actually Eric Smith in this shot.

Also the support troops have begun their formal training...  (Hmmm... they appear to have better computers than we do)

The US Navy's Office of Naval Research is studying new ways to reduce the impact of jet noise on carrier deck crews. The Navy says that jet noise from tactical aircraft can reach 150 decibels on the flight line, which is well above the safe limits for hearing. Factories, for example, are required to institute a hearing protection program once noise levels reach 85 decibels, the Navy says.

The ONR hopes its project will help to create new approaches to mitigate jet exhaust noise which will result in safer noise environments. That should also help in reducing noise complaints reported in communities near military bases.

ONR is awarding about $4 million to researchers at Brigham Young University, California Institute of Technology, Cascade Technologies, Innovative Technology Applications Co., University of Illinois, University of Mississippi, Pennsylvania State University and Virginia Tech for the effort. NASA is also chipping in a few dollars...

Hearing loss is no joke, and it's imperative that folks wear proper hearing protection working around aircraft. Something I learned the hard way.

Anyway, here is picture of F-22 Raptor tail number 09-4191 flying home to Langley from the Lockheed Martin's factory in Marietta, Georgia. There are three more left to go, last one leaves the nest on May 2. You should wear hearing protection if you are standing near an operating Raptor--see it's not just an excuse to post an F-22 shot.

Also the F-35 is pretty goddamn loud... Yes, heard it in person at Pax and on the USS Wasp.

The US Air Force's Global Strike Command is planning on commemorating the 60th anniversary of the first flight of the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress on 15 April. The original event happened on 15 April, 1952, when the YB-52 prototype took to the air over Seattle, Washington.

 The YB-52 is actually the second Stratofortress built by Boeing. The XB-52, which was the first aircraft, was damaged during ground testing and first flew on 2 October, 1952.

 Unlike the current B-52 flying today, the original two test planes had the crew sitting in tandem similar to the earlier B-47 aircraft.

 Anyways, the B-52 has been in the USAF fleet for so long that there are quite literally generations who have flown the type. One such example is the 23^rd Bomb Squadron's 1st Lt Daniel Welch, who is stationed at Minot AFB, North Dakota. His dad and grandfather both flew the eight-engine bomber.

 There is a joke in the USAF that when any given newer type of bomber is retired to the "Boneyard", the last crew who drops off that aircraft to Davis-Monthan AFB in Arizona will be picked up in a B-52. And there is more than a grain of truth to that...

 The B-52 has outlived all of its would be replacements. Remember the B-58 Hustler Mach 2+ bomber? Gone. XB-70--it's in a museum in Ohio. FB-111? Those are rotting away in the desert somewhere. And probably so will the B-1 and B-2 when it comes to their turn... (Don't have a crystal ball, just willing to make that bet)

 The USAF is working on a new stealth bomber under a new program called the Long Range Strike-Bomber as part of its classified budget. The service wants 80 to 100 of the aircraft to enter service in the mid-2020s and cost $550 million each.  It will rely on "mature technologies" --even if it's supposed to be optionally manned--and the USAF will watch its appetite for added new capabilities, Air Force chief Gen. Norton Schwartz insists. But he's leaving in a couple of months- what then?

 The USAF has a long track record of bungling acquisitions programs and overreaching on technical requirements--so the jury is still out on if this new LRS-B will ever see the light of day.

 Given the ever aging and ever shrinking USAF bomber fleet, it had better work out better than the F-22 and F-35 programs, much less the ill-fated Navy A-12 program (which was also developed largely in the classified space).

The Global Strike Command has put together a timeline here:

 April 15, 1952 - The first flight of the YB-52 Stratofortress will be commemorated with a long-duration flight from AFGSC Headquarters at Barksdale.

 May 10 through Oct. 23, 1972 - Operation Linebacker - Linebacker was the first continuous bombing effort conducted against North Vietnam since the bombing halt instituted by President Lyndon B. Johnson in November 1968.

 June 18, 1965 - Operation Arc Light - The first use of the B-52D Stratofortress as a conventional bomber from bases in the U.S. to Guam to support ground combat operations in Vietnam.

 Aug. 2, 1994 - B-52's first round-the-world bombing mission.

 Oct. 26, 1962 - Strategic Air Command received the last B-52 from production line

 Dec. 18 through 29, 1972 - Operation Linebacker II - This operation saw the largest heavy bomber strikes launched by the U.S. Air Force since the end of World War II.

The recent crash of US Navy F/A-18D Hornet from VFA-106 into an apartment building in Virginia Beach raises the question: Is there already too much encroachment around Naval Air Station Oceana?

Read our coverage here and here

It's never a smart idea to build residential buildings near a busy airport or a busy military airfield, but this issue has come up before for Oceana. And it will continue to pop-up around the country. MCAS Miramar near San Diego immediately comes to mind as a prime example.

 Take a look at this timeline laid out by YesOceana.com. It's possible there is already too much encroachment.

 July 19, 2005  

 The BRAC commission votes to add NAS Oceana to the list of base closures.

 August 4, 2005           

 Federal, State, and City of Virginia Beach leaders appear before the BRAC commission to defend NAS Oceana.

 August 24, 2005         

 The BRAC commission votes to maintain NAS Oceana if Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, and the Commonwealth of Virginia commit to appropriate money to stop encroachment within APZ-1 by March 2006.

 December 20, 2005    

 Virginia Beach City Council adopts plan for compliance with BRAC Commission decision and begins meeting the terms of the BRAC order.

 February 14, 2006     

 Virginia Beach City Council adopted a zoning ordinance amendment to include clear zones as part of the APZ-1 Use and Acquisition Plan.

 March 28, 2006          

 Virginia Beach adopts ordinances to:

        * Allow certain uses as principle uses in APZ-1

        * Amend the Airport Noise Attenuation and Safety Ordinance regarding avigation easements on property within Air Installment Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ)

        * Establish the APZ-1 Property Exemption District

        * Establish the APZ-1 Technology/Business Opportunity Zone

        * Amend plan to include principles guiding the voluntary conversion of nonconforming      uses to conforming uses in APZ-1

 March 31, 2006          

 The City of Virginia Beach presents the plan to the BRAC Commission to stop and roll back development around NAS Oceana. A plan that meets and exceeds the BRAC intent quicker, more effectively and at a lower cost.

 One would hope that whatever the city managed to roll-back, that it is sufficient.

Two US Air Force F-15 Eagle fighters were scrambled to intercept a Korean Air Boeing 777 airliner shortly after it took off from Vancouver, British Columbia, due to a bomb threat.

The Boeing-built air superiority fighters were launched out of Portland, Oregon, under the auspices of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) to intercept the airliner around 4:00 Pacific time 10 April.

"The Korean airliner was intercepted, diverted and the aircraft was shadowed until it landed at Canadian Forces Base Comox [British Columbia] at approximately 5:30," a Pentagon spokesman says.

The F-15s were likely part of the Oregon Air National Guard's 142^nd Fighter Wing, which performs the air sovereignty mission for NORAD and its parent US Northern Command organization.

CFB Comox sometimes serves as a temporary forward base for Canadian Forces CF-18 Hornets, which are also built by Boeing, but is primarily used by search and rescue and maritime patrol aircraft. Given that US aircraft were used for the intercept, it is unlikely that a CF-18 detachment is currently present at the base.

NORAD itself is a joint Canadian and US command that was established in 1958 to defend North American airspace from intruders and provide warning of a nuclear attack. At the time, the threat was primarily from Soviet bombers and ICBMs, but after the events of September 11, 2001, NORAD took on an expanded role in policing the skies against similar terrorist threats.