Recently in Oops Category

The commander of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards' air arm claims that the Middle Eastern nation is reverse engineering the stealthy Lockheed Martin RQ-170 unmanned aircraft that crashed inside its borders last December.

According to the Iranian Mehr "news" agency, the Guards' air chief Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, says that the country's experts have managed to crack the RQ-170's encrypted systems.

"I am giving you four codes so the Americans understand just how far we have gone in penetrating the drone's secrets," he says, speaking on Iranian TV on 22 April.

"In October 2010, the aircraft was sent to California for some technical issues, where it was repaired and after flight tests, it was taken to Kandahar (in Afghanistan) in November 2010, when a series of technical problems still prevailed," Hajizadeh says. "In December 2010, it was sent to an airport near Los Angeles for repair of its equipment and sensors, and flight tests. The drone was then sent back to Kandahar."

If that's true, that could prove to be a damaging loss of technology. But it is probably beyond Iran's means to build a copy of the aircraft, though it has managed to successfully reverse engineer the aged 1960s vintage Northrop Grumman F-5 fighter as well as the Bell AH-1 Cobra, among other projects.

Of course, if Russian or Chinese experts got a hold of the RQ-170 wreckage, they could glean valuable insight into the construction of the aircraft. But the RQ-170 was designed in the late 1990s, so it is dated technology.

While it is unlikely Iran could have brought down the RQ-170, the US Defense Department is well aware that future adversaries could attack the vulnerable data-links that control unmanned aircraft.

In February, US Air Force intelligence chief, Lt Gen Larry James said the service wanted to make sure it has a solid grip on the technology challenges facing unmanned aircraft in a high threat environment -- to include secure communications--before embarking on next-generation unmanned aircraft project.

 "We want to get our arms around all these technology challenges in an A2/AD [anti-access area denial] environment -- the comm-paths, all those things," James said at an Aviation Week conference. "So before we just jump in into a MQ-X next-generation thing, we think we need some time to sort through all those things."

Meanwhile, the US Navy is still working on its Unmanned Carrier Launched Surveillance and Strike aircraft.

One solution to the problem could be increased autonomy for future unmanned aircraft. But if those aircraft were to drop weapons, there would still have to be a man-in-the-loop, otherwise it would raise serious legal and ethical questions.

Meanwhile, Washington has not said one way or the other what caused the RQ-170 to go down, US analysts and industry officials say the unmanned reconnaissance jet likely malfunctioned. It apparently was not equipped with a self-destruct system and was prominently displayed on Iranian TV after it crashed--mostly intact from all appearances.

The aircraft was reportedly performing surveillance missions of various nuclear sites inside Iran at the time of the incident.

Iran, of course, claims to have downed the RQ-170 with either a cyber or electronic attack, but US sources say that's extremely improbable.  But future adversaries will likely have genuine capabilities to disrupt communications or hack into a UAV's control systems.

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?

Note to US Department of Defense:

Contrary to today's photo gallery captions on defenselink.mil, an airframe sporting a high T-tail, four turbofans and a massive fuselage is usually not associated with the Lockheed Martin C-130.

It's arguable that no two companies in the US defense industry compete as fiercely as General Atomics, which builds the Predator, and Northrop Grumman, which makes the Global Hawk.

That's why this obviously mistaken contract award notice today by the US Department of Defense is so beautifully ironic, worthy of my newly-created Typo of the Year trophy. Behold:

General Atomics of San Diego, Calif. is being awarded contract modification for $64,500,000. This action provides for Engineering, manufacturing and development activities in support of the Global Hawk Program. At this time $4,000,000 has been obligated. 303 AESG/PK, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio is the contracting activity (F33657-01-C-4600, P00222).

Er, that's Northrop Grumman, right?

Flying an unmanned aircraft can be a little like skiing downhill backwards. When you're no longer absolutely sure you're going in the right direction, it's probably a good time to just fall down.

We're not really sure why the P-175 Polecat -- the latest Skunk Works creation anybody outside of Palmdale is allowed to know about -- met an early grave last December, and the Skunk Works public relations machinery (surprise!) isn't helping very much.

For the Skunk Works, I understand that secrecy and obfuscation may be considered a core competency but in this case it's not just annoying. It's irresponsible. The future of unmanned flight depends above all on the level of transparancy about why these aircraft crash so much and what is being done to prevent it.

Many times the reason for a UAV crash is just like the backwards skiier. Once control of the UAV is disrupted or lost in any way, the safest option is to crash immediately.

Unfortunately, we don't know if this simple explanation applies in this case and we may never know.

I've pasted Lockheed Martin's responses to reporter's questions below. If anyone is able to make any sense of the term "irreversible unintentional failure in the flight termination ground equipment", please let me know.

What's going on with Polecat?

The Lockheed Martin Polecat Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV) returned to flight test at the Nevada Test and Training Range late last year. During a test flight, when the vehicle was functioning normally and in full positive control by the ground operators, it was unfortunately damaged beyond repair. The damage was the result of an irreversible unintentional failure in the flight termination ground equipment which caused the aircraft's automatic fail-safe flight termination mode to activate.

Why have we waited so long to release this information?

There was an investigation and during that time we were precluded from discussing this per government order.

What caused the flight termination system to activate?

A failure in the Nevada Test and Training Range flight termination equipment resulted in the activation of the fail-safe flight termination mode.

Who is at fault?

It's not a matter of "who." There was an irreversible unintentional failure in the flight termination ground equipment at the Nevada Test and Training Range. We believe the Test Range has corrected the potential for a similar circumstance to occur again.

Why couldn't the flight termination be stopped?

The fail-safe mode is designed to irreversibly terminate flight to ensure that systems do not deviate from the range into civilian airspace.

Explain what you mean by automatic fail-safe mode?

The fail-safe mode is required for range safety for unmanned systems to ensure systems do not deviate from the range and pose a danger to civilians on the ground outside the range boundaries.

When did it happen?

The incident happened at year end. An investigation is complete and being shared with appropriate parties.

Will you share the incident report publicly?

No, there are no plans to share the report publicly.

Was this an issue with flight controls?

No, the aircraft was in full control and performing well.

Does the U.S. Government have any liability in regard to providing funds to build a replacement vehicle?

No, the U.S. Government has no liability.

General P-175 Information

How long has Lockheed Martin been working on this program?

LM internally funded this effort beginning in March 2003 and was ready to fly 18 months later.

Is this a declassified program?

No, this is a proprietary Lockheed Martin Internal Research and Development program funded solely with Lockheed Martin IRAD funds.

Where was it built?

The Polecat was constructed in our advanced prototyping facilities at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company in Palmdale, Calif.

Was this unmanned system meant to replace manned systems in the future?

No, Lockheed Martin's unmanned systems are designed to work collaboratively with manned systems.

What is the highest altitude the vehicle flew?

We had just gotten back to flight test when the incident occurred. The highest altitude the vehicle flew was 15,000 feet.

How many vendors /subcontractors were involved on this program?

I don't have an exact figure. However, Lockheed Martin is grateful to all the vendor team members who supported such a fast-paced program.

Did LM Aero intend to use Polecat to capture a specific contract or line of business?

Lockheed Martin has been involved in research and development opportunities for more than 40 years.  However, we wish to position ourselves in development work for the Air Force's future Long Range Strike Program. Many lessons learned on this project will be applicable to future efforts, including Long Range Strike.

Was this vehicle designed as a stealthy or low observable vehicle?

From a shaping standpoint the vehicle was configured for down stream enhancement but the original configuration was not "stealthy." Polecat was an effort to better understand flight dynamics of a tailless air vehicle as well as advanced composite structural design concepts in support of our ongoing research and development work for the Air Force's future Long Range Strike Program.  The all-wing design gave the UAV an aerodynamic advantage by reducing drag.

Was Polecat planned to be a replacement for the U-2 spy plane?

No, the two vehicles are not related.

Was the UAS controlled by a satellite for Beyond Line Of Sight (BLOS) operations?

No.  Our ground station segment was a standard line-on-sight, (LOS) operations capability.

How far and how fast did it go in flight tests?

This information is proprietary and as such, I can't share that information at this time.

Have you had any customer interest in this system?

Yes. I can't reveal any specifics in this regard.

How many people work on the program?

It was roughly 60 people comprised of engineers, shop personnel and support staff.

Why is it called Polecat?

Polecat is a colloquial term used to refer to some members of the Skunk family. Since this was a Skunk Works IRAD effort we thought the name fitting.

All typos are bad. Some are REAL bad. Read it on DefenseLink:

Raytheon Co., Tucson, Ariz., was awarded a $23,700,000 cost-reimbursement contract on Mar. 2, 2007, to procure long lead material in support of the FY07 production of Evolved Seasparrow Missiles (ESSM) for NATO Seasparrow Consortium countries and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers.    Raytheon Co. will procure long lead material used in FY07 ESSM production for Australia, Canada, Germany, Greece, Norway, Spain, United States, and the United Arab Emigrants. Work will be performed in Australia (26 percent); The Netherlands (25 percent); Spain (19 percent); Tucson, Ariz. (12 percent); Norway (6 percent); Greece (4 percent); Germany (4 percent); Canada (2 percent); Denmark (1 percent); and Turkey (1 percent), and is expected to be completed by Feb. 2010. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The contract also supports the United Arab Emigrants under the FMS program. The contract was not competitively procured. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N00024-07-C-5431).