Recently in Defense With an 'S' Category

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?

Neither Lockheed Martin nor the Joint Strike Fighter program office could be found anywhere at the Navy League's Sea, Air, and Space Exposition--which is strange since the Department of the Navy 'owns' two of the three F-35 variants. They're also supposed to buy 680 jets--420 USMC jets (340 F-35Bs + 80 F-35Cs) and 260 planes for the Navy. You'd think they'd be there.

(BTW--Yes, I'm well aware the 'wherefore' here means why rather than where in the context of Mr. Shakespeare's play. I just don't care.)

While Lockheed was a no show at Sea, Air, and Space, the company did release a video of the first British F-35B. They offered a version without music, but I'm too lazy to upload it--sorry. You minions will just have to suck it up.

Nor have the testers at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland, been idle... On 29 March, F-35 developmental testers finished pit-drops of nine different types of weapons from the jet's internal bays, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) says. Trials were performed on inert GBU-12 Laser-Guided Bombs, the 1000-pound GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munitions, and the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile and other types.

The last test was performed on a 500 lbs bomb that was dropped from BF-3, the third short take-off vertical landing test jet.

 This is not a shot of the pit-drop testing incidentally... courtesy of Lockheed Martin.

According to NAVAIR, weapons pit-drop testing collects data to measure stresses on the airframe and adjacent stores, ensures proper weapon and suspension equipment function, and validates the separation models for the munitions' ejection characteristics, including trajectories and velocities. "Completion of these weapons ejections into the pit gets us closer to in-flight release of weapons from the F-35," says US Navy Captain Erik Etz, director of test and evaluation for F-35 naval variants.

But while NAVAIR gears up for in-flight armament tests, other weapons trials on the F-35B and F-35C carrier variant are currently underway at Pax River. Current tests include pit drops, captive carry and instrumented weapons environmental flights, which will lead up to flight separation testing scheduled for later this year.

Propulsion is the key the US Navy's next-generation F/A-XX fighter to replace the service's Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fleet in the 2030.

"That's the long-lead item, frankly," says Rear Admiral William Moran, director of the N98 air warfare office at USN headquarters. "In terms of technology it takes you to another place."

The USN will have to engage with industry to determine where the "art of the possible" might lead the service. "Propulsion has a lot of benefits, and we know its kind of the critical path to new developments," he says.  

What is clear is that for a next-generation fighter to fly faster, over greater distances and then persist over a target area, all the while carrying a greater payload, means that the aircraft will require a new type of propulsion system, Moran says. That means such a fighter must be able conserve fuel while it is not operating at peak combat performance levels.

Next-generation propulsion systems should also be scalable to different applications, Moran says. That would afford the USN some level of commonality on the carrier deck of the future if parts of the air wing could share the same logistical train and skill sets for maintenance crews.

Moran reiterates his Naval Air System Command counterpart's--Rear Admiral Donald Gaddis--comments that the next-generation fighter must have far better kinematic performance and range than existing fighters. That is particularly true in an anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) environment.

"If you look at the A2/AD environment, and that arc, overtime, is going to grow larger. We have to stay ahead of that," Moran says. "So the weapons have to be able fill that. And the only way you're going to do it is have greater kinematics."

 The US Air Force and USN are both working on new fighter technologies and may find some benefit from each other's developmental efforts. It is possible that the two services might develop common subsystems but build different airframes based on their divergent needs, he says. But that has yet to be determined.

The USN issued a Request for Information (RfI) for a new fighter to replace the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler in the 2030s on 13 April.

Happy Saturday minions... Here are some videos from Red Flag over at Nellis courtesy of the USAF. One is just of them refueling over the barren Nevada desert. The other is of airfield operations at Nellis.

I'm not going to lie to you, the videos aren't terribly exciting... But here you can read my Raptor retrospective- which is a masterpiece if I do say so myself.  I know, humility is not my strong point. Also here is Flightglobal's commentary on the Raptor program.

Lockheed Martin's modified optionally-manned Kaman K-MAX is doing well in US Marine Corps user trials in Afghanistan. While the USMC is probably onboard, what about the US Army? They could certainly use something like this. But do they have the money and the interest? That is the question... Meanwhile, NATO countries are apparently lining up to buy it according to Lockheed's Jim Naylor. Read about it here.

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 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.