Recently in Industry Fads Category

My first civilian aviation story has been released... I have to say it was one of the more interesting things I've gotten to cover. Basically, Honeywell has launched a new version of its Apex Primus avionics suite for the Pilatus PC-12. This version has synthetic vision added... which makes life a lot easier for the pilot.

Now, as I'm sure most of you guys know, the PC-12 is flown by the US Air Force Special Operations Command under the designation U-28. The USAF aircraft are usually flying into small austere strips to drop-off special operations troops. Also, according to some accounts, they provide surveillance for special operations forces on the ground with their cameras and other intelligence-gathering apparatus.

Perhaps the USAF might potentially be interested in a version of this technology? Honeywell's system uses a highly detailed terrain data-base to generate its imagery, which is probably not suitable for the military's usage by itself (since it can't take into account for something that might pop up-- like a parked truck or other unknown variable). But if one combines that with millimeter-wave radar or the like, that might be something they could potentially use. Of course, that's assuming they don't already have something (which they very well might).

Meanwhile, the US Army is already looking at a number of solutions to the problem of degraded visual environments for its helicopters--millimeter wave radar, lasers, long-wave infrared, synthetic vision, or a combination thereof. That would solve the vexing problem of brownouts-which has plagued helicopter pilots since the beginning of rotary-wing aviation.

The US Air Force Test Pilot School has started a new cyber-systems course.

"We are the place where the world comes to learn about test and evaluation. With the introduction of the Cyber Systems Test Course, we can now teach our graduates and others the framework for testing cyber systems in a contested environment," says Col Noel Zamot, TPS commandant. "This is the first course of its kind that includes a disciplined, yet flexible approach to testing cyber intensive systems."

According to the USAF, the Cyber Systems Test Course provides TPS students with the knowledge and resources for successfully identifying and testing cyber vulnerabilities on a variety of systems.

While cyber is becoming an increasingly important part of current military thinking, I can't help but feel this move steers the TPS away from its roots as a school for pilots and flight test engineers.

It's happened before with the USAF Weapons School--which, before the introduction of myriad different courses for different airframes, space and cyber--used to be called the Fighter Weapons School.

Perhaps the TPS will go that way too... with the word "pilot" being dropped in order to be more inclusive.

The times they are a-changin'--as Bob Dylan said.

This photo has nothing to do with the TPS or Edwards AFB, except that I found it on their site--I just thought it's an awesome shot. This jet is actually from the 65th Aggressors at Nellis.

The USAF has more here

Boeing is showing off some of the advanced features it is proposing for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Some of these include conformal fuel tanks, an external weapons pod to reduce the jet's radar cross-section, better engines, and a new missile warning system among other improvements.

Inside the cockpit (both cockpits in the case of the F-model) is a new single-screen color LCD display. But what is truly impressive is a new 3D situational awareness display mode--it overlays various threats and displays them in an easy to understand graphic. Terrain can be overlaid on the display along with color-coded contours.

What's more, airborne enemy threats are displayed as color-coded aircraft-shaped icons appropriate to their type. The same goes for the engagement radius of surface-to-air missile systems and the like. Apparently, according to the Boeing engineer who was showing me the setup, the jet already collects that data, it's just that there is no way to display it in the current Block II cockpit.

Here are a few images I took of the cockpit the company was showing off at the Navy League's Sea Air Space Exposition. Forgive the poor quality; I was using a Blackberry camera...

 Sorry the flash caused some problems...

Anyways, the demonstrator actually runs the real flight-model for the F/A-18E/F according to the Boeing software engineer, who works on the system. But it doesn't model the new engines or other proposed mods and, of course, the avionics and weapons are dumbed down for public display.

Nonetheless, when I flew the demonstrator, the aircraft handled remarkably well (at least compared to anything I have flown). Incidentally, using that 3D situational awareness display, I shot down three Flankers with AMRAAMs effortlessly, but of course, they weren't shooting back. I then killed the last one with the gun, again, a piece of cake...  but alas, it was dumbed down since he wasn't shooting back.

But I did land on the carrier with no help whatsoever or even having the dude talk me down on my first (and only try). I wonder if it was dumbed down, even if my engineer acquaintance insists that it's not. The Boeing demo pilots practice on it, he says. Still seems too easy...

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.

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.

I started covering the US Navy's off-again/on-again Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) program about five years ago. It's been back on for two years and -- last I checked -- poised for a contract selection decision in five days.

This makes me sad. Why? Because I just thought of an obvious angle for a BAMS story that I've missed somehow for the last five years!

For posterity's sake, I'll tell you about it.

If I had the chance to re-interview all of the competitors and USN program officials, here's the first question I would ask: Why is this a winner take-all award instead of a split-buy?

The competitors for BAMs are the Northrop Grumman RQ-4N Global Hawk (high-altitude, turbofan, active electronically scanned arrays), Lockheed Martin/General Atomics Mariner (medium-altitude, turboprop, mechanically scanned arrays) and Boeing/Gulfstream G-550 (high-altitude, turbofan, optionally manned, multiple active arrays).

Each product is basically an off-the-shelf platform modified to meet the USN's requirement. The USN is not paying to design a new aircraft. It's essentially buying a la cart. That's probably why each platform offers vastly different operational strengths and weaknesses.

This competition isn't a choice between two discreetly differerent rivals, like the YF-22 versus the YF-23. This is more like the YF-22 versus the B-1. Each platform is a completely different capability, but both are useful for their intended purpose.

I agree there are downsides to a split buy award: the upfront costs are higher than a winner-takes-all award, you lose some of the marginal benefits of commonality and training gets more complicated.

But there are other advantages. The USN would not be beholden to one contractor for BAMS for the next two or three decades, but could keep playing the two teams off each other over the life of the program. Instead of a narrowly focused solution, the USN's operators could employ the platform that makes the most sense for each mission.

Not to mention the fact that Congress tends to like split buys, as it spreads the jobs more broadly and subjects the defense industry to greater competition.

I'm not saying a split-buy is the best answer for BAMS, but rather that it's an imporant and seemingly logical question that I should have asked long before now.

But tell me what you think about it.

(Full disclosure: my wife works for Lockheed.)

You’ll see a lot of news print (and electrons) this year on the big US defense procurements with names like KC-X, BAMS, JTRS and the like, and that’s appropriate.
But you won’t see much coverage of a very different sort of contract competition underway within the US Air Force, despite its enormous significance for the defense industry.
The contract is called F2AST for short, or the Flexible Acquisition Sustainment Tool follow-on. It’s scheduled to be awarded in June. The money involved – up to $5.4 billion -- is potentially greater than the BAMS and JTRS deals combined.
The contract focuses on the un-sexy task of sustaining and modifying existing weapon systems, versus developing new platforms. But that’s the market that the US defense industry covets the most as the balance of DOD’s money shifts from procurement to operations and maintenance accounts.
It’s also the hardest part of the market to keep track of, especially as a journalistic outsider. There are no line items in DOD’s annual budget request for small upgrades, no operational test and evaluation reports, no single-issue congressional hearings, no industry press conferences and – unsurprisingly -- virtually no coverage across the trade press.
As a self-appointed watchdog, I’ve never been comfortable with the anonymity of the acquisition process for contracts like F2AST, especially because of the huge sums involved. There’s too much money changing hands behind the scenes for this to be a good thing.
Thankfully, the USAF has just made my job much easier. As part of its new openness policy in acquisition, the USAF has released a motherlode of documentation on the F2AST program, including a detailed database of every task order awarded to a contractor during the previous contract.
Here’s the link to the database: https://pkec.robins.af.mil/FAST2/FAST_FOIA_Data_Release_31Jan07.xls

The AUSA hosts the Army Aviation Symposium this week, which gives me the perfect excuse to ask one of my favorite questions:
What will it take to get US military helicopter technology out of its long and barren rut?
I believe the last all-new aircraft designed, built and fielded for the US military was the UH-60A Black Hawk. The army spends about $3 billion a year on helicopters, but all of that money pays for derivatives of technology originally deployed between 30 and 50 years ago, or militarized versions of civil helicopters.
Arguably no other sector of advanced US military technology – fighters, airlifters, UAVs, ships, fighting vehicles, missiles, satellites, etc – has tolerated a longer and deeper drought of deployable innovation.
Think about it: the last all-new aircraft designed for the army was the Sikorsky/Boeing RAH-66 Comanche, and that program was cancelled in 2004 after only two prototypes were built.
The Comanche would have been the first helicopter to introduce stealth design characteristics, but the fundamental limitations of helicopter performance – speed, range and payload – have been stuck in a paralyzing rut since the late-1960s.
Of course, there are a few programs in the very early stages of concept design that may offer a solution, but each faces an agonizing and perilous path to delivering a finished product sometime after 2015.
Namely, they are the payload-limit-busting Joint Heavy Lift (JHL) aircraft (post-2015) and the speed-barrier-busting Joint Multi-Role (JMR) aircraft (post-2020).
Elements within the army want to launch an X-Plane flyoff for JHL starting in 2010, but that project will face intense competitive pressure. The alternatives come from the USAF, and they range from the futuristic AJACS concept to near-off-the-shelf derivatives of the C-17, A400M or C-130J.
Requirements and technologies for JMR will continue to coalesce over the next five years or so. But the defense industry is already jockeying to be in competitive position.
Sikorsky plans to fly the speedy X2 demonstrator this year (the original first flight date was postponed in December).
Boeing is working with Piasecki on the X-49 compound Black Hawk. Boeing’s real interest is to apply the technology to the AH-64 Apache, either as a JMR-lite if the army starts pinching its pennies, or as a testbed for an all-new platform.
Another, more near-term, idea is to deploy the technology on the H-1 Cobra, to serve as an armed escort for the US Marine Corps’ MV-22 fleet. Sikorsky’s X-2 will likely also battle for the contract if this requirement emerges over the next few years.
The ground for greater leaps in technical sophistication is being prepared by DARPA, which is supporting BellBoeing’s evolving concept for a “folding tiltrotor” or “tilting stop-rotor”. Boeing also is working with DARPA to develop the concept for a new hybrid aircraft design called “Rotor Disk”.

Boeing today announced signing a 10-year, $1 billion deal with Hindustan Aeronautics to shift technology development and manufacturing operations to India.

Raytheon announced a similar-but-less-specific plan and signed a partnership agreement with Tata about a year ago, and generally "looks forward to expanding its relationship with India".

Lockheed Martin apparently has been in India the longest, thanks to inheriting Martin Marietta's office in New Dehli after the merger in 1994. It started greatly expanding in 2005, and "within the span of one year ... established its brand in Indian military circles".

Northrop Grumman beefed up its New Dehli office about a month ago, and wants to sell India airborne surveillance equipment, fire control radars, infrared countermeasures and targeting sensors.

I'm getting asked more and more by defense industry public relations departments about this whole blogging thing. Social media has apparently become a trend that most of them can no longer ignore. Questions are asked: am I a blogger or a journalist who blogs? Have the rules changed? Which bloggers are important and which bloggers can (should??) just be ignored?

I have some long answers to these questions, but there's a short answer that is a lot more helpful: just try it.

Defense companies have been oddly immune from the blogging phenemenon, compared to their high-tech industry counterparts in the civilian sector.

Can you imagine a company like Lockheed Martin, Boeing or Northrop Grumman allowing their employees to blog about their jobs and their company's products -- with no release approval process???

I'm sure to some that suggestion sounds absurd, but there are dozens of non-official bloggers employed at Microsoft. While some Microsoft managers periodically call for one or two to be fired, the bloggers continue to go about their business. Along the way they've done much to change the perception of Microsoft as a borg-like corporate cult, as chronicled in the book, Naked Conversations, by Robert Scoble and Shel Israel.

It won't be long before the same phenomenon creeps into the defense industry. Social media is becoming too pervasive and too important especially to the younger generation of workers to keep under wraps -- even in Big Defense.

The best thing defense PR types can do is to prepare for the inevitable, and experience is the best teacher (to, er, coin a phrase).