Recently in Deep thoughts Category

Photos of China's second prototype Chengdu J-20 tactical aircraft have emerged on Chinese internet sites--including the government-backed Global Times.

This second jet, apparently called aircraft 2002, appears to have a few a modifications to the original aircraft--called aircraft 2001. The most obvious one is that the air data probe appears to have been moved to the tip of the radome.  

Since everyone else is speculating on what this thing might be, I'm going to offer an observation.  This J-20 type has small wings relative to its size and probable weight. Even taking into account that its fuselage probably acts as a lifting body, it's huge and likely has very high wing-loading. So one could argue it's not a fighter per se--maybe a strike aircraft of some kind...

But that being said, given that the center of pressure moves aft during supersonic flight, the placement of the canards affords the designers a long moment arm. That means more leverage for those control surfaces, which presumably helps the aircraft's supersonic maneuverability.

More images here

The US Navy is going ahead with its Next Generation Jammer program, but if and when the F-35 gets that hardware is very much in doubt.  The service is going to have the EA-18G operating in the fleet through the mid-2030s--but what comes after that could be very different from what we currently fly.

Read the full article here.

The future of electronic warfare might not be single large platforms, says Captain John Green, the Navy's airborne electronic attack program manager. Instead it could very well be dispersed unmanned platforms or manned tactical aircraft carrying a jammer pod--but those pods might be controlled remotely from the ground or from a Growler.

It's already happening, the US Marine Corps' Intrepid Tiger II, which the service built in-house, will fly on the weapons station of a Boeing AV-8B Harrier or F/A-18A/B/C/D in Afghanistan this summer. But the pilot won't operate the pod; the Marines on the ground will use the pod via a data-link and remote control.

Another interesting fact about the Intrepid Tiger II is that the system is completely open architecture and was assembled using commercial-off-the-shelf parts by the Marines and Naval Air Systems Command. It can be pretty much upgraded or modified on a whim with little additional testing required, a senior Marine officer tells me. To top it all off, it only costs about $800,000... which is dirt cheap by Pentagon standards.

The caveat, of course, is that the Marines used Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds to cut through the red-tape... so that's why it's cheap and effective.

In other news, the Pentagon announced today that US Air Force Major General Christopher Bogdan is moving over to the F-35 program as the new deputy program director. He currently heads the KC-46 program at the Aeronautical Systems Center. So he could be the heir apparent to Vice Adm David Venlet...

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?

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.

One of the stunning admissions that came out of the US Air Force Scientific Advisory Board F-22 briefing on 29 March was that the service had let its aerospace physiology competency atrophy.

Read the full story here: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-to-rebuild-its-aerospace-physiology-expertise-370521/

They also haven't figured out what's causing the F-22's problems:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-vows-to-discover-root-cause-of-raptors-maladies-370164/

The Raptor flies well above the 50,000ft ceiling (by USAF regs) of other fighters like the F-15 and F-16, but unlike pilots flying the high-flying U-2, F-22 pilots don't wear a pressure suit. The USAF issues a waiver to pilots, which allows them to fly up to 60,000ft while wearing the Combat Edge g-suit (60,000ft is the limit due to the Armstrong Line-which is found at an altitude of between 62000ft and 63000ft, where the outside air pressure is so low that water will start to boil at 37°C or 98.6°F) The Combat Edge is ostensibly supposed to act as a partial pressure suit.

However, after years (decades) of enduring spells of decompression sickness (from wearing an actual pressure suit, but astonishingly enough, not having it inflated) from exposure to cabin altitudes of around 29,000 ft, U-2 crews are getting some relief.

The USAF is modifying the U-2 to allow for a lower cabin altitude of between 15,000ft and 16,000ft. It's hoped that will banish decompression sickness from the U-2 community--which happens even though crews undergo elaborate pre-breathing (with pure oxygen and cardio) procedures hours ahead of a flight.

Raptor pilots, however, don't have any of those procedures or a pressure suit... but are exposed to nearly the same kinds of cabin altitudes.  Perhaps the U-2 community might have some insight into the Raptor community's woes?

The Congressional Budget Office’s report out today summarizing long-term defense spending plans should be read a bit like a Lewis Carroll novel: Don’t take anything too literally and just have fun spotting all the hidden meanings.

Here’s what I found:

1) The USAF has dumbed-down requirements for the long-range strike aircraft from the B-2 to something more like a stealthy version of the previously-irreplaceable F-111. But, CBO says:

“To replace the intercontinental capability offered by today’s bombers, the air force would need to develop another aircraft sometime in the future.”

2) The CBO assumes that the Navy needs a new sea-based interceptor for ballistic missiles, which will enter production after 2014. (Note: That will be 12 years after the USN cancelled its previous attempt to build a new interceptor.)

3) The USN has been coy about attaching numbers to its plans to purchase a fleet of unmanned combat air systems, but CBO assumes an acquisition of 70 by 2025.

4) CBO assumes the air force will buy a second YAL-1 Airborne Laser in 2013 and begin buying seven more operational aircraft after 2017. (Note: Somebody needs to send a memo to Boeing to keep the 747 in production through 2020, or say hello to the A380 Airborne Laser.)

Trolling the US military's contract solicitations is always a fun diversion for readers with a taste for irony.

Take the US army's solicitation yesterday (click here) for a NFL tour group to shake hands and sign autographs for the troops in Afghanistan.

The contract requires the vendor to deliver three active or recently retired NFL players, who must have played three seasons at any of the following "key" positions: quarterback, running back, kicker, defensive safety, defensive linebacker, or wide receiver.

NFL lineman, consider yourselves dissed. Even the kicker outranks you.

Wall Street thinks Nick Chabraja, CEO of General Dynamics, is one of the shrewdest -- if least talkative -- executives in the aerospace and defense business.

If you're looking for someone to read political-industrial-strategic tea leaves for you, Chabraja's your man. And he's expected to retire in the near future, so savor his words now.

Chabraja certainly didn't disappoint during a 50-minute chat with analysts yesterday at the Morgan Stanley Industrials CEOs Unplugged Conference, which I tuned into via webcast. Here's what he said.

On why defense industry CEOs like himself don't fear an about-face for US security policy after the Bush term expires in 2008:

It seems to me that the market is unduly preoccupied with the Iraqi situation. These companies do not depend on that particular deployment. And when that one’s done there’s going to be another one. We will not be out of Afghanistan under any circumstances. So I don’t – I don’t know how to tell you what the industry could do to make it better. In many respects this is a wonderful market to be in. The credit of your customer is very good. They are mature in terms of systems. Very predictable in a lot of ways. In its early days, this industry was highly cyclical, had long shoulders, long cycles, but severely cyclical. And, I would say, in the first 40 years of its existence the aerospace and defense industry didn’t make any money for anybody. A 3% return on sales was probably the [total of the] first 40 years, with a lot of bust years. I think the investment community didn’t very much like the industry because they don’t do very well with it. I would say that this is an industry that has done very well since the end of the Cold War. You would think it would be just the opposite. [However], the cold war ended and the industry started to perform. Since early 1990 probably the returns from this industry have been as good as anybody else’s. But normally we have not been accorded very healthy multiples.

On how defense acquisition reform really works:

Change is constant in the defense side of our business. Why is that? Because acquisition is run by civilians many of them political appointees, and many of them -- at least against the sands of time -- are in office for a short period of time. Each [are] anxious to imprint some lasting improvement and legacy for their tour of duty. So the industry is faced with new initiatives from service secretaries, assistant secretaries for acquisition, technology. So this is not new. But there are only so many contract vehicles known to man, and we are going to have to deal with a handful and new initiatives. And I think it’s incumbent upon industry to be disciplined and flexible to meet our customers needs and at the same time to be able to calculate and measure the risk that we face for the benefit of our shareholders and not engage in foolish contracting practices. But I don’t think it’s political-party sensitive. But it comes with change in administration.