Armoredd.com

Air Force Link 

Mission
The RQ-11 Raven Small Unmanned Aircraft System is a small man-portable UAS that performs reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition missions for Air Force Special Operations Command Battlefield Airmen and Air Force security forces.

Features
The Raven back-packable UAS features two air vehicles or AVs, a ground control unit, remote video terminal, transit cases and support equipment. Two specially trained Airmen operate the Raven AV. The AV can be controlled manually or can autonomously navigate a preplanned route. The Raven includes a color electro-optical camera and an infrared camera for night operations. The air vehicle is hand-launched, weighs less than 5 pounds, has a range of 10-15 kilometers and an endurance of up to 80 minutes.

Background
The Raven system has proven itself in combat supporting U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other areas of conflict. The Raven is now used by all of the military services. Air Force security forces are currently purchasing the Raven UAS to replace its aging Desert Hawk UAS.

General Characteristics
Primary Function: Situational awareness and direct target information
Contractor: Aerovironment, Inc.
Power Plant: Electric Motor, rechargeable lithium ion batteries
Wingspan: 4.5 feet (1.37 meters)
Weight: 4.2 lbs (1.9 kilograms)
Weight (ground control unit): 17 lbs (7.7 kilograms)
Speed: 30-60 mph (26-52 knots)
Range: 8-12 km (4.9-7.45 miles)
Endurance: 60-90 minutes
Operating Altitude: 150-500 feet air ground level (45-152 meters)
System Cost:  approximately $173,000 (2004 dollars)
Payload: High resolution, day/night camera and thermal imager
Date deployed:  2004
Inventory:  Classified

Point of Contact
Air Force Special Operations Command, Public Affairs Office; 229 Cody Ave.; Hurlburt Field, Fla. 32544-5273; DSN 579-5515 or 850-884-5515. 

October 2007

The Raven puts more eyes in the sky

by Staff Sgt. Mike Andriacco
455th Air Expeditionary Wing Public Affairs 11/12/2007 - BAGRAM AIR BASE, Afghanistan (AFPN) – The little cousin of the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper is making a big splash here as the RQ-11B Raven program takes flight.The Raven is a small unmanned aerial vehicle used to conduct visual reconnaissance up to ten kilometers away, said Staff Sgt. Daniel Garcia of the Force Protection Aerial Surveillance System Flight here.

The Raven itself is very small, a little more than four pounds, but packs a big punch in the area of surveillance. It can fly at a height of 10,000 feet above sea-level and remotely sends live footage back to the operator, where it is recorded for later evaluation.

“The Raven can fly in several different patterns,” said Sergeant Garcia. “It can fly in a predetermined pattern, circle an area or be controlled remotely by an operator.”The Raven doesn’t have landing gear but is designed to break apart on impact to prevent damage to the structure of the UAV itself and can be reassembled in minutes.

The camera provides high-resolution imagery up to 500 feet above the terrain, with location coordinates built into the display, and can remain aloft for one and a half hours on a single charge, said Sergeant Garcia.The RQ-11B also has several benefits over earlier models.

“This is a more durable UAV and it is much easier to launch,” said Col. Steven Ross, chief of the anti-terrorism office at U.S. Transportation Command. “The former model had to be launched like a giant slingshot. This one can be hand launched.”

The biggest benefit of the UAV is in creating a visual data to base defense forces without having to launch a regular-sized aircraft sortie.

The tactical advantage of having a small aircraft capable of transmitting images without putting pilots in harm’s way can be summed up with just a few words.

“Being able to see the enemy first is key,” Colonel Ross said.

by Staff Writers
Newtown CT (SPX) Mar 26, 2008

 Source: Space War

In a new analysis, Forecast International projects that fighter aircraft manufacturers will deliver 3,345 new fighters over the next 10 years. According to the study, “The Market for Fighter Aircraft 2008-2017,” it is estimated that the total value of production for the fighter market during this timeframe will be worth $164.5 billion. The study notes that many nations are in the middle of a major, long-term re-equipment cycle. While annual fighter production is set to average around 300 aircraft per year through 2013, it will increase to 400 aircraft per year in 2014 as production of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II/Joint Strike Fighter ramps up later in the decade.During the forecast period, the total value of annual production will fluctuate from $16.1 billion in 2008 to a 10-year low of $14.8 billion in 2013. It will then begin to grow in line with rising production levels, reaching $18.3 billion by 2017.

“Although fighter production will remain stable over the next few years, the U.S. military and allies of the United States are set to buy huge numbers of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 to replace legacy fighter fleets in coming years,” said Douglas Royce, Aerospace Analyst at Forecast International. “No other maker can look to such a potentially large market for its fighter aircraft.”

by Staff Writers
Charlotte NC (SPX) Mar 27, 2008

Source: Space War

The U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Life Cycle Management Command has awarded General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products a contract worth $166.4 million for the production of 2.75-inch Hydra-70 rockets. The award is part of a five-year requirements contract signed in 2005 that has a total potential value of more than $900 million if all options are exercised. General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products is a business unit of General Dynamics. “General Dynamics Hydra-70 rockets provide U.S. forces with effective firepower that is versatile, affordable and has proven extremely successful against area suppression-type targets,” said Russ Klein, vice president and general manager of weapon systems for General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products. “Our team in Camden, Ark., is proud to manufacture this rocket system to help protect the men and women who protect us.”Hydra-70 is a family of unguided rockets offering several warhead configurations that enable an aircrew to match the rocket to the specific mission. Rockets can be fired from a variety of rotary and fixed-wing platforms, including the U.S. Army Apache and U.S. Marine Corps Cobra attack helicopters, the U.S. Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcon and combat aircraft of many nations worldwide.System engineering and program management will be performed at General Dynamics’ Burlington Technology Center in Vermont. Final assembly and component sub-assembly will occur at General Dynamics’ Camden, Ark., facility.

Sat, Mar 29, 2008

By MICHAEL HALL

The Brunswick News

Lt. Commander Noel Gonzalez is from Florida, but he asked for an assignment to the USS Georgia.

“This is a great ship,” he said after serving as master of ceremonies for the submarine’s return to service ceremony Friday at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, in Kingsland.

“Being on the Georgia in Georgia is a big deal,” Gonzalez said.

More than 2,000 sailors, spectators and dignitaries were on hand for the 560-foot submarine’s coming out ceremony after being converted from a ballistic-missiles sub to a guide-missile and attack sub and home-ported at Kings Bay.

“It is a remarkable machine,” said U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston, R-1.

The USS Georgia is the last of four submarines from the Cold War era to be converted from nuclear weapons to conventional weapons.

It is now capable of firing 154 Tomahawk guided missiles, launching Navy SEALs without surfacing, diving more than 800 feet deep, and carrying a crew of more than 200.

“Our Georgia will make us proud,” Gov. Sonny Perdue said during the ceremony. “To the crew, I can assure you that the citizens of this state stand behind you. Your work will never go unrecognized.”

Perdue presented Capt. Brian Mcilvaine, commander of the submarine, with a Georgia state flag that had ceremoniously traveled through all of the state’s 159 counties.

“We will fly this flag proudly,” Mcilvaine said.

Among the crew on the submarine is Harry Jadick, missile technician first class, who enlisted in the Navy at 27 years old for a change of scenery from his job in an Atlantic City casino.

“It is going to be a ride,” Jadick said.

From another era of servicemen who attended the ceremony is Joe Sabol, who was in the Navy from 1942 to 1965. He was aboard the USS Thomas Jefferson, a submarine carrying nuclear weapons, off the coast of the then Soviet Union the day President Kennedy was assassinated.

For him, the USS Georgia represents a step in the right direction. “It means we have more firepower for today,” he said.

For the crew members, it means the beginning of a new chapter in their careers.

The first step is training, which will begin in the coming weeks, said Gonzalez.

Part 1

Published: March 13, 2008 at 11:24 AM

Source:  United Press International

By MARTIN SIEFF
UPI Senior News Analyst
WASHINGTON, March 13 (UPI) — The enormous battle being waged between Boeing and the U.S. Air Force over the award of a giant air tanker deal to Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautics Defence and Space Co. is filled with complexities and ironies that go far beyond the respective merits and problems of the aircraft involved.The reasons Boeing lost while Northrop Grumman won point a revealing light on a long-established U.S. Department of Defense procurement process that has malfunctioned far more often in recent years than it ought to — with increasingly costly and serious results for the U.S. taxpayer and for U.S. national defense.

Many of the causes for Boeing’s defeat were rooted in the company’s long-established successes and in some of its most spectacular failures in recent years in other fields. But the controversy also heightened the growing global contrast between the way the major corporations of the U.S. high-tech and defense sectors do business and the very different business model that prevails across the Atlantic in the European Union.

The Boeing Co. Tuesday lodged a protest with the Government Accountability Office over the U.S. Air Force’s decision to contract for a new medium-range air tanker to Northrop Grumman and its European partner, the French and German-controlled EADS, for their KC-45A rather than Boeing’s KC-767.

The $35 billion decision to buy 179 aircraft — expected to grow to a $100 billion commitment to buy 600 in all — came as a bombshell to Boeing and has rocked the U.S. aerospace industry. Congressmen and senators on either side of the aisle are up in arms over it.

Boeing said the U.S. Air Force didn’t note its experience when awarding a tanker contract to EADS and Northrop Grumman.

“Not only did this flawed decision deny the government the manufacturing benefits of Boeing’s unique in-line production capability, subjecting the Air Force to higher risk, but it also resulted in a distortion of the price at which Boeing actually offered to produce tankers,” the company said.

“In evaluating past performance, the Air Force ignored the fact that Boeing — with 75 years of success in producing tankers — is the only company in the world that has produced a commercial-derivative tanker equipped with an operational aerial-refueling boom. Rather than consider recent performance assessments that should have enhanced Boeing’s position, the Air Force focused on relatively insignificant details on ’somewhat relevant’ Northrop/EADS programs to the disadvantage of Boeing’s experience,” the company said.

“Boeing offered an aircraft that provided the best value and performance for the stated mission at the lowest risk and lowest life cycle cost,” said Mark McGraw, vice president and program manager, Boeing Tanker Programs.

“We did bring our A-game to this competition. Regrettably, irregularities in the process resulted in an inconsistent and prejudicial application of procurement practices and the selection of a higher-risk, higher-cost airplane that’s less suitable for the mission as defined by the Air Force’s own Request For Proposal. We are only asking that the rules of fair competition be followed,” McGraw said.

However, Northrop Grumman said Monday it won the U.S. Air Force’s new air tanker contract in a fair fight.

Part 2

Published: March 14, 2008 at 3:50 PM

WASHINGTON, March 14 (UPI) — Northrop Grumman is arguing that it won the U.S. Air Force’s new air tanker contract in a fair fight.The Boeing Co., whose KC-767 air tanker lost out in the contest for the $35 billion contract to Northrop Grumman and the European Aerospace and Defence and Space Co.’s KC-45A air tanker, has protested the deal and requested the U.S. Government Accountability Office to undertake an investigation.

The controversy on Capitol Hill crosses party lines but follows an otherwise predictable pattern. Congressmen and senators from states where Boeing and its industry partners who would have been involved in the program are furious at the decision. States where Northrop Grumman and its partners have plants, or can be expected to build or expand them, are all for it.

Boeing corporate officials and spokesmen have been outspoken in their criticism of the way the deal was awarded. But Northrop Grumman has hit back in championing the merits of the aircraft it will be building with EADS.

“The KC-45A competition underwent the most rigorous, fair and transparent acquisition process in Defense Department history,” Northrop Grumman said. “Throughout the process, both competitors in the KC-45A acquisition hailed the Air Force for conducting a fair and open competition.”

“The size of the proposed tanker aircraft was not dictated by the Air Force nor was size an established criteria — each contractor was free to propose the best solution and platform to meet Air Force war fighter requirements,” Northrop Grumman said.

“Both contractors had ample opportunity in the protracted acquisition and source selection process to propose the best aerial refueling capability to meet the war fighter’s requirements,” the company said.

Northrop Grumman also said the new KC-45A air tanker was already a tested and reliable aircraft, unlike the KC-767.

Northrop Grumman said its first KC-45A tanker aircraft “was built in July 2007 and flown in September 2007.” The company said the KC-45A’s Aerial Refueling Boom System had already “completed 73 test flights totaling more than 200 flight hours.”

“The boom completed the first in-flight fuel transfer on Feb. 29, 2008 passing 2,000 pounds of fuel to a Portuguese Air Force F-16 combat aircraft,” the company said.

Northrop Grumman also said the KC-45A was “based upon the Royal Australian Air Force KC-30B Multirole Tanker — which has been built, flown, and is undergoing flight tests. It will be delivered on schedule to the Royal Australian Air Force in early 2009.”

“Boeing’s proposed KC-767AT tanker and refueling boom were never built, flown or tested,” Northrop Grumman said.

Northrop Grumman further claimed that its KC-45A tanker assembly program “will create a new aerospace manufacturing corridor in the southeastern United States.”

“The KC-45A program helps return competitiveness to the U.S. aerospace industry,” the company said.

Boeing said if it had been given the contract, it would have created 44,000 jobs across the United States. Northrop Grumman originally said its program for the KC-45A would create 25,000 jobs. But this week, it announced that in fact 48,000 jobs would be created.

It must be said that this last claim appears unlikely. Under the Boeing program, much more work would have been done on manufacturing the aircraft in the United States. Under the Northrop Grumman program, EADS would actually build most of the primary parts of the aircraft which are, after all, adapted versions of the Airbus A-300, in plants across Europe. Those parts would then be shipped to a new plant yet to be built in Alabama where they would then be assembled.

Part 3

Published: March 18, 2008 at 2:11 PM

WASHINGTON, March 18 (UPI) — The continuing conflict between Northrop Grumman and Boeing over the U.S. Air Force’s gigantic air tanker is unique in the recent history of U.S. military procurement.The interactions of the dozen or so largest U.S. defense contractors usually resemble an intricate minuet performed by gigantic dinosaurs with an infinite number of interacting appendages. The business of the biggest contractors is often closely intertwined. It is routine for divisions of one giant contractor — units that as companies of their own would be worth hundreds of millions of dollars, or even billions of dollars in their own right — to work closely and harmoniously with subcontractors for rival corporations. Even when competition may be intense for a particularly big contract, there is usually little, if any, bad blood afterward, at least in public.

However, the giant corporations of the U.S. defense industry are also like major nations that control their own territories and empires. Companies will develop areas where their own specialty will be taken for granted. General Dynamic Electric Boat therefore is the company that makes nuclear submarines. The Boeing Co. builds the finest strategic bombers and airliners in the world and breathtaking anti-ballistic missile systems too. Lockheed Martin is famous for the Patriot anti-ballistic missile for which it is the prime contractor.

But occasionally, just as entire provinces may change hands in a war, or overseas colonial empires become independent or change hands, one giant corporation will win a contract in an area which another corporation has looked upon as its own traditional preserve. This happened under the Clinton administration when Boeing won the main orders for the Future Intelligence Architecture — the next generation of U.S. intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance satellites, wresting the business from Lockheed Martin, which had been dominant in the field for more than 30 years.

Now Boeing has suffered the same fate in the air tanker market. It has provided the U.S. air force with its fleet of KC-135 air tankers — originally versions of the Boeing 707 — for more than half a century. The KC-135s have been flying since the Eisenhower administration and Boeing has done a superlative job of keeping them reliable and efficient for decades longer than their original projected operational life.

But nothing lasts forever, and over the past decade the KC-135s have been more in demand than ever, serving the Air Force’s proliferating new military commitments from Kosovo to Afghanistan to Iraq. The time for their replacement was long overdue.

Boeing understandably was confident — and even complacent — that it would get the order to replace them with its new KC-767 air tanker. After all, no other corporation in the world knew as much about air refueling tankers, had built so many of them or had operated them efficiently for so long as Boeing.

But nothing lasts forever in the world of military weapons systems and procurement either. Northrop Grumman joined forces with the German and French run European Aeronautics Defence and Space Co. on a proposal to adapt the European A-330 Airbus into the KC-45A air tanker.

The odds against Northrop Grumman and EADS winning seemed enormous. First, there was Boeing’s 52-year record in having a lock on the USAF’s air tanker business.

Second, Boeing and Airbus are currently locked in a bitter row embroiling the U.S. government and the European Union over the European governments’ massive subsidies to Airbus trying to make it more competitive than Boeing in the world market.

This enormous level of government subsidy and support is a significant reason why EADS was able to undercut Boeing on projected costs of the sale.

Boeing also claims that the U.S. Air Force found that operational costs will be much higher on operating the KC-45A. And since the KC-45A is a much larger aircraft than the KC-767, its fuel operating costs will be much higher too.

However, the KC-45A’s larger size will give it a longer range and enable it to carry much more fuel than the KC-767, though Boeing argues that this was not in the Air Force’s original specifications for the aircraft it said it wanted.

But where Northrop Grumman and EADS clearly beat Boeing hands down was in their hunger for the contract and the efficiency and aggressiveness with which they went after it.

Part 4

Published: March 19, 2008 at 7:14 PM

WASHINGTON, March 19 (UPI) — The debate over the rival merits of the Northrop-Grumman-EADS KC-45A air tanker and the Boeing KC-767 is one of the most intense and difficult in the recent history of U.S. military procurement because of the broad range and complexities of the issues involved.The KC-45A is a far larger plane. It will have a longer range and be able to carry far more fuel. However, it will be consequentially far more expensive to operate and will require far more fuel itself. At a time when global oil prices are around $100 a barrel and could go even higher, that is a significant factor, too.

Northrop Grumman and its partner, the European Aeronautics Defence and Space Co., satisfied U.S. Air Force assessors they would be able to master the immense challenges of building different parts of the aircraft in different countries — including Germany, France, Spain and the Netherlands — and then shipping them to a new plant to be built in Alabama for assembly and adaptation by Northrop Grumman. After all, Airbus is already built that way and the KC-45A is an adaptation of the A-330 Airbus.

However, EADS has had no experience of building aircraft for tankers. It certainly performed the impressive feat of creating a refueling boom for their prototype KC-45A and then successfully operated it for U.S. Air Forces officials. Boeing, slow and complacent in seeking what it thought was an assured contract, did not come near to doing that.

However, as we have noted before, Boeing has unmatched experience at operating the Air Force’s old fleet of Boeing KC-135s — originally adapted Boeing 707s designed in the 1950s — and keeping them flying for decades longer than originally planned. And that expertise cannot be duplicated by Northrop Grumman and EADS.

This is very important because the recent history of U.S. military high-tech procurement teaches repeatedly that there are great risks involved when switching responsibility for major programs from companies that have successfully implemented them for decades and giving them to brash newcomers in the field.

Ironically, as we have noted before in these columns, Boeing undermined its own reputation by rashly taking on prime responsibility for the next generation of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance satellites from Lockheed Martin in the Clinton administration’s Future Intelligence Architecture program. The Bush administration was eventually forced to scrap that program after $4 billion had been spent on it.

Here, the dangers of lack of experience combined with entropy — the inevitable tendency toward delay, disorganization and chaos of any new program carried out by a major corporation that has no prior experience with it — will be far greater.

Construction of the KC-45A will be carried out not in the United States at all but a continent away, and in plants in different countries, none of which has had any previous experience running aircraft production lines for a military customer as demanding as the U.S. Air Force.

No high-tech program of such complexity involving so much work in so many different countries has ever been attempted before. It is straining credulity to assume that the program will flow on time as smoothly and effortless as the European businessmen convinced the U.S. Air Force that it would. Nor is it reassuring that EADS posted a $446 million loss for the 2007 financial year.

The future therefore, remains filled with uncertainty.

© 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved.
This material may not be reproduced, redistributed, or manipulated in any form.

By Andrew Chuter

Published: 27 Mar 13:11 EDT (09:11 GMT)

Source: Defense News

LONDON - The Royal Air Force is to get a fleet of Airbus in-flight refueling tanker aircraft in a 13 billion pound ($26 billion) private finance initiative (PFI) signed by the Ministry of Defence and the AirTanker consortium.

More than four years of negotiations between the AirTanker consortium, led by Airbus parent EADS, and the MoD over terms have finally been completed with a service contract allowing the RAF to have the use of up to 14 converted A330 airliners for tanking and passenger transport duties.

The first of the aircraft will enter service in 2011 to replace the RAF’s aging fleet of VC-10 and Tristar tanker/transports.

The deal, set to run for 27 years, is reckoned to be the largest defense public-private partnership yet undertaken.

Under the arrangement, the AirTanker consortium will own the aircraft and be responsible for training and maintenance, with the RAF effectively leasing the assets as required.

AirTanker will provide the infrastructure at the A330’s operating base at RAF Brize Norton, Oxfordshire, including the hangar, training, maintenance, flight operations’ fleet management and ground services.

Announcing the deal, defense procurement minister Baroness Taylor said the A330 would provide the RAF with a state-of-the-art tanker and passenger aircraft supporting air operations around the world.

“Achieving a satisfactory outcome to this complex, high-value, PFI deal has been challenging, particularly given the factors currently affecting the financial markets,” Taylor said.

Some 2.2 billion pounds of the capital required by AirTanker to undertake construction of the aircraft and other assets had to be funded by debt when plans to raise the cash via a bond fell victim to the recent credit crunch. AirTanker shareholders provided about a further 200 million pounds.

AirTanker boss Phil Blundell said closing the deal had been a challenge in the face of turmoil in the financial market.

EADS is the leading AirTanker shareholder in a consortium which also includes Cobham, Rolls-Royce, Thales UK and the VT Group.

The RAF is expected to require a core fleet of about eight aircraft with the remainder available to meet surge requirements.

AirTanker plans to lease the A330s for civil transport when the aircraft are not required by the military.

Blundell said he hoped that all the aircraft eventually would be fully employed by the RAF.

Aircraft leased into the civil market can be returned to the RAF in a maximum of 30 days, or sooner in an emergency. Conversion back to military standards, including the fitting of under wing refueling pods, can be achieved in a matter of hours.

AirTanker was selected to negotiate with the MoD in January 2004, beating a Boeing-backed bid offering second-hand British Airways 767s.

Since then, the A330 has gone on to win a string of air tanking contests against Boeing, culminating in the U.S. Air Force decision to acquire the aircraft for its own in-flight refueling requirements. Boeing is contesting the award.

Andrey Frolov

Source:  Moscow Defense Brief

In 2007 Russia’s national defence procurement (NDP) amounted to 302.7 billion rubles (app. $11.6 billion), which marks an increase of 27.9% over 2006. Of this sum, $5.6 billion (47.9%) will be spent on purchases of new equipment, $2.3 billion (19.8%) on repairs and modernization, and $3.7 billion (32.2%) on R&D. Appropriations for purchases, repairs and modernization, and R&D grew by 25.5%, 23.6% and 34.4%, respectively.

NDP-2007 includes purchases of new equipment and the continuation of long-term programs begun in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The latter consists mostly of Navy projects, given their high cost and relatively long production cycles, when compared to the equipment of other services. Published data tends to support official statements that mass purchases of serially-produced items are planned, especially with regard to the Navy, though the scale of such purchases remains rather low.

Significant sums (41% of the sum, reserved for purchasing of the new equipment) have also been allocated to repairs and modernization. Given the Defence Ministry’s tradition of procuring new equipment for its strategic nuclear forces, most of funds assigned to repairs and modernization will be devoted to conventional weaponry. In 2007, the strategic forces will acquire 17 land and sea-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) – a post-Soviet record, according to published information – finance the construction of three ballistic nuclear missile submarines and acquire new strategic bomber.

There is virtually no information on purchases of weaponry, for the air force and navy above all. Taking account of the high price of modern weapons systems, which one can estimate on the basis of export contracts, it is likely that the share of such purchases in absolute and relative terms is quite large.

It is interesting to compare NDP‑2007 with the State Program of Armaments for 2007—2015 (SPA-2015). The latter allocates $190 billion, of which the Defence Ministry should provide $173.5 billion, including $109.2 billion. for the purchase of new arms and equipment at constant 2006 prices. This sets appropriations for arms and equipment in 2007 at 5.1% of the overall spending planned to 2015, or about half of the proportion that would have to be spent equally over the next eight years (11.1%) to match the forecast of SPA‑2015. The gap between the relative percentage allocated to purchases of new arms and equipment is evident with 63% for SPA‑2015 and just 47.9% for NDP‑2007. These figures could be related to the tendency to reduce “inertial” purchases, i.e., the completion of long drawn-out projects, some dating to Soviet times and requiring repairs even before the completion of construction, and the simultaneous growth of “innovative” projects, i.e., the rising number of newly-acquired weapons systems. Indeed, it is clear that purchases of arms and equipment purchases is set to increase by 2010. The number of long drawn-out projects will be also be reduced by administrative action; for example, the fitting-out of the Project 949AM cruise-missile nuclear submarine at Sevmash was rejected in 2006 and not included in NDP‑2007.

Finally, NDP‑2007 marks the threshold of a new practice for the arms-procurement system: from 2008 the national defence procurement will be defined for a three-year period.

The tables below show only known purchases of arms and military equipment for the Russian armed forces, not including purchases for law enforcement and security agencies like the Interior Ministry, the Federal Security Service and others. Published orders for repairs and modernization are also included, but R&D contracts are not.

By Paul Richfield
January 28, 2008

Source:  The Journal of Net-Centric Warfare 

The U.S. Navy has asked U.S. defense contractors to design and ultimately build a new signals intelligence (SigInt) platform to replace the service’s aging fleet of Lockheed Martin EP-3E Aries II turboprops. Although the number of aircraft in the potential “EPX” order is relatively small by U.S. procurement standards — 14 to 24 is a popular estimate — the final selection could have a significant influence on how first-tier militaries conduct maritime surveillance for decades to come.

Not only will EPX be the newest Navy aircraft devoted to eavesdropping on enemy communications, it also will be the first to serve as the SigInt element of a networked ISR system incorporating manned and unmanned aircraft, satellites, ground stations and surface combatants. Detailed technical requirements are closely held, although the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) revealed the basic considerations to prospective bidders at a recent EPX industry day conducted at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md.

Kristine Wilcox, a NAVAIR spokeswoman, said EPX will be a manned ISR and targeting aircraft capable of operating in a SatCom-constrained environment, in concert with the P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft and the UAV ultimately selected for the Navy’s Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) bid. Wilcox said the competition is open to all interested parties and is expected to attract a diverse range of platform and sensor providers.

“Nothing is decided,” she said. “We plan to work with industry to find the best solution.”

This could be considered a minor revelation, as it opens the door to alternatives to what many had considered a fait accompli — a dedicated SigInt version of the twin-turbofan P-8A. Boeing unveiled this 737-based aircraft in January 2006, after the Navy dropped out of the Army-led Aerial Common Sensor (ACS) program. ACS was slated to replace the EP-3E and two types of Army reconnaissance aircraft, but the contract was canceled when ever-expanding mission requirements outgrew the winning platform, the Embraer 145 regional jet.

Given this background, Embraer seems an unlikely EPX bidder. But if the Brazilian manufacturer does attempt to scale the Pentagon’s wall again, it now can offer the EMB-170/190 family — single-aisle airliners that appear able to carry any reasonable evolution of the EP-3E mission system. Embraer declined to comment on EPX, although senior executives previously conceded a post-ACS wariness of the U.S. acquisition process and specific issues with U.S. defense contractors serving as lead systems integrators.

Another airline narrowbody with potential EPX application is the EADS Airbus A320 family, and EADS representatives attended the Pax River briefing. NATO selected and then dropped a stretched derivative aircraft, the A321, as its platform for the Alliance Ground Surveillance program now in concept development.

General Dynamics’ Gulfstream unit seems an obvious EPX contender, and its BAMS partnership with Boeing — built around an optionally-manned version of the G550 business jet — effectively positions both companies for EPX should the Navy call for a platform smaller than a 737. Gulfstream also could proceed without Boeing, but this seems unlikely unless BAMS is awarded to one of the other contenders.

Northrop Grumman is offering an AESA-equipped Block 20 Global Hawk UAV for BAMS, while Lockheed Martin has proposed a long-winged variant of the General Atomics Predator B UAV. The initial contract award was planned for October, but the decision was still pending as C4ISR Journal went to press.

Bombardier’s Global Express — the chosen bus for the U.K.’s ASTOR battlefield radar program — is another potential EPX platform, but like Gulfstream, its fate is tied to the size and scope of the mission system. If the Navy keeps the size, weight and power demands within tight limits, observers believe, one of these converted corporate chariots could get the nod.

“Don’t count the bizjets out,” said Joe Siniscalchi, L-3 Communications Integrated Systems’ director of business development. “Processing density has improved, allowing us to drive to smaller systems. With EPX, the biggest challenge is that you have the right size, weight and power to do what you need done. It’s really a question of new development vs. reuse, and how much risk the customer is willing to take.

“EPX is very important to us. We’re incumbent on the current platform and have been tracking developments for some time. We’re very interested in seeing how the Navy program evolves. Clearly, the P-8A and BAMS programs will have an influence, but that being said, the Navy is in assessment mode. Certainly, the mission system will drive the requirements, and [P-8A] is built for an entirely different mission — anti-submarine warfare. With EPX, the big thing is how much onboard processing power will be needed to meet the required level of autonomy.

“On-scene, on-orbit, on-platform processing, tactical dissemination, linking back with the command authority — these are the kinds of things that will shape the EPX requirements. The Navy needs to be able to do what the EP-3E does, but it also has to plan for tomorrow’s threats. Do you need 24 people, or will a data link suffice? This is the kind of question that has to be answered. More and more, software is driving capabilities, so it’s much easier to build a smaller system that meets the mission but is easily upgraded as the requirements mature.”

CONNECTING AN ISR TRIAD

Although the ability to process SigInt data in real time may have a strong influence on the final EPX systems configuration, forging robust electronic links with P-8A and BAMS could have equal weight in the hardware/software procurement arena. Although BAMS remains a wild card until contract award, Boeing hopes the apparent commonality between the P-8A and an “EP” version of the same aircraft will give it the edge, regardless of who wins the UAV contract.

“Our whole approach is to capitalize on the Navy’s P-8A investment, as opposed to building from the ground up or refurbishing something to last for another 50 years,” said Tim Norgart, business development director of Boeing’s ASW/ISR unit, based in Puget Sound, Wash.

“When we first rolled out the [P-8A], there were two variants: Search & Attack and Surveillance & Intelligence. SI went away when the Navy went with the Army on ACS, but we felt confident that someone would eventually come back to an airplane of this size, for this mission. And now, with the Navy out of ACS and EPX a stand-alone program, they have. It’s funny how things come full circle.

“Transitioning from the P-8A, we see very few changes to the airplane and can easily incorporate all the features needed for the SigInt mission. We do intend to leave the hard points on the wings intact, and the bottom forward section has all that strengthening for weapons, antennas and anything else the Navy wants to install. We’ll also have a small ‘canoe’ up there, but the structural work has already been done,” Norgart said.

“P-8A has an open mission system architecture, and it’s only a matter of plugging in the applications needed for the specific mission; you can ride the SigInt applications right on top of this backbone, without them cascading through the entire system. Of course, we’ll also leverage the sensors that are already on the P-8A, like radar and [electro-optical/infrared], and the baseline [communications] links.

“The sharing and the workload capacity is there, and our ability to lay down a 14-operator configuration is very easy; you just bolt the work stations to the seat rails and hook up the power and cooling. With the P-8A, the wiring is already there for the power distribution, along with a significant reserve. We don’t even make a dent in that figure.

“Our core development team worked together on the MRA4 Nimrod mission system, and we’re going to leverage those work stations so the radar, ESM and all those kinds of things remain the same. We plan to stay with the Raytheon team that does the current system on the EP-3E; they’re a big part of what we’re doing and bring a tremendous amount of experience to this mission area.

“What we will be bringing on are a group of different SigInt providers, talking with all of them, to put a total system together. We’re in our assessment phase now. If the Navy moves toward a [lead systems integrator] and wants to compete different parts of it, we’ll do that.

“Onboard processing is still a great area for debate and could determine the size of the airplane required, but there are a whole lot of other things, as folks with the first ACS program will tell you. Our approach is really platform-agnostic. We didn’t settle on the 737 by accident, or because of the P-8A.

“We take the total requirements picture and apply them to a wide range of air vehicles, and might end up with two vehicles to support the total set of requirements. We’ve known the requirements for EP-3E and EPX baseline, and they continue to drive our trade study to a 737-based approach.

“Programs that start out on the margins of payload and power capacity — the risk assigned is pretty high, and not many of them have been successful. When the margins are tight, if you want to put something on, you have to take something off,” Norgart said.

MOVEMENT TOWARD MULTI-INT

Mission systems providers are conducting their own EPX trade studies on two parallel tracks. One assumes that the Navy will seek only to replicate EP-3E with a more modern platform, with machines replacing humans in some on-board roles.

The second — and some say more likely — approach is that the service will regard the Aries II as merely a launching point, with EPX emerging as the first true multi-Int aircraft, and one with networking capability, as well.

“They definitely want to combine additional capabilities related to things on other aircraft; the key is to analyze the time line of the program,” said Jim Courtright, director of maritime surveillance programs for Lockheed Martin.

“If you’re looking 10 years forward, the technology will be packaged and integrated somewhat differently. The [EP-3E] systems are very federated for compartmentalization, and as a function of their design increments and block upgrade development.

“It’s pretty clear that the Navy is going to need an open architecture for upgrades and new capabilities, with a system that fits with the overall system-of-systems architecture in 2015 or 2020. Also, they’re going to want to take advantage of all the improvements in antennas, signal processing and other functions.”

Raytheon, a major P-8A partner, sees EPX as a “positioning exercise.” Jim Hvizd, the company’s director of enterprise pursuits, said involvement could range from an upgraded search radar if the Navy goes plain vanilla, to a multilevel sensor suite incorporating SigInt, synthetic aperture radar, ground moving target indication, onboard processing, and UAV control/data collection, with or without help from ground stations.

“It’s going to be interesting to see how the requirements flesh out, and we’ve heard everything from a business jet to a 737,” Hvizd said. “The Navy still has to work out how EPX, P-8A and BAMS will work together. We’re supporting Boeing on its BAMS bid, and our APS-137 [radar] could appear on the G550 BAMS; our radar for EPX would certainly draw from that legacy. Until the BAMS decision is made, I feel we’re pretty constrained.

“Multi-Int on a single platform is a new thing, as is sharing data from multiple platforms, and we look at it as a way to serve the Navy’s needs across all the maritime surveillance programs. What we’ve learned with [the United Kingdom’s] ASTOR is how to deliver ISR capabilities unique to specific requirements, but from ASTOR to EPX will be a great leap forward. It comes down to a choice between another patrol plane or a flying battle station that can drastically shrink the sensor-to-shooter loop: That’s what the Navy has to decide.”

by Staff Writers
Newtown CT (SPX) Mar 26, 2008 

Source: Space War 

In its annual analysis, “The Market for Tanks,” the Forecast International Weapons Group expects that the international market will produce over 6,900 main battle tanks, worth nearly $27.9 billion, through 2017. However, while increased modernization and retrofit remains transparent to our analysis of new-production tanks, this factor remains a significant component of the international market.

Dean Lockwood, Weapons Systems Analyst at Forecast International and author of the analysis, noted, “In 2007, U.S. Department of Defense contract awards for the maintenance, RESET, and upgrade of the existing M1 Abrams inventories carried a total value of over $1.223 billion.” That was equivalent to nearly 33.25 percent of the total value of all new-production main battle tanks entering the international market in 2007 (over $3.68 billion). Last year, the Chinese Type 98 program maintained its position as the single largest new-production program. Yet, with a total value of $402.62 million (for 118 new-production tanks), the Type 98 program was worth less than 33 percent what the U.S. DoD spent on the M1 Abrams in 2007.The expense associated with the modernization and retrofit of high-end main battle tanks pales in comparison with the prospect of new tank procurement. Thus, we expect that new production of high-end tanks will remain relatively low, accounting for 14.03 percent of all production and worth 22.25 percent of the market, during the forecast period. In terms of sheer numbers, we expect that Pakistan’s Al Khalid, the Type 98 of the People’s Republic of China, and the Russian Federation’s T-90 (including India’s licensed T-90S production program) will continue to dominate the market, accounting for 60.38 percent of all new tanks rolling out worldwide, worth 52.82 percent of the market, through 2017.

In the international market for main battle tanks, the days of U.S. and European domination over new production appear to be long gone. Nevertheless, the established U.S. and European players continue to make their presence felt. The 120mm Rh 120 smoothbore ordnance, the state-of-the-art Leopard 2, and the combat-proven M1 Abrams continue to set the standard for main battle tank design worldwide.

Second only to the infantryman in terms of combat effectiveness, the “mailed fist” of heavy armor remains the arm of decision on the modern battlefield. Further, as Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003-present) evolved from a war of movement into a security operation, the main battle tank has proven surprisingly adaptable.

According to Lockwood, “In the congested streets of Iraqi cities, the Abrams serves as a significant force multiplier, fully up to meeting the challenges of an asymmetric warfare environment.”

By Dr. Hwang Chin-young  
Director of Policy and International Relations Division  
Korea Aerospace Research Institute  

Source: World Defence Industry Files

 The aerospace industry is recognized as a high technology-oriented, high value-added and also strategically important industry. Especially in the 21st century, as air and space have been used more and more in various ways, many countries have become interested in the aerospace industry.  
 
Korea joined the aircraft industry in late 1970s by producing 500MD helicopters under the license agreement with McDonnel Douglas of the United States. The country joined the space industry after 10 years of developing project of the KITSAT-1 satellite. The satellite was invented by KAIST SaTRec in cooperation with Surrey University in the U.K.  
 
Despite the short history in the aerospace industry, aerospace technologies in Korea have improved rapidly thanks to the proficient human resources and their efforts.  
 
In the aircraft sector, defense orders have played a pivotal role to maintain the industry. Since late 1970s, Korea produced 500MD helicopters, F-5 E/F and F-16K fighter and UH-60 helicopters under the license agreement,  
 
And Korea successfully developed the KT-1 piston-propeller type basic trainer independently and recently developed the advanced jet trainer T-50 jointly with Lockheed Martin (USA). The Korea Aerospace Industries Ltd. (KAI) seems ready for take-off, expecting to export a few dozen of the new generation jet trainers, T-50.  
 
The Korean Helicopter Program (KHP) started in 2006. It is under way in order to make Korea one of the top seven countries in helicopter technology and to build the independent abilities for the development of helicopters until 2012.  
 
As for the Unmanned Vehicle Program, KARI succeeded the test flight of Smart UAV 40 percent Scale Down Model in November 2007, making Korea one of the two countries, along with the U.S., to have Tilt-rotor technology in the world.  
 
KAI and Korean Air also participated in the commercial business areas through large commercial transport programs, such as the Boeing 787 and the Airbus A350.  
 
Korean aircraft firms have caught up with the industry by developing (1) system assembly under the license agreement with foreign advanced companies, followed by (2) airframe parts manufacturing and subassembly, (3) sub-assembly development, and finally (4) system development by indigenous capabilities.  
 
The Korean aircraft industry has been growing rapidly and the production of Korean aircraft is around $1.5 billion and exports have increased to about $300 million in 2007. They are expected to grow further in 2008.  
 
The Government has a vision to enter the world’s top 10 in this area in a few decades by achieving world market share of 5 percent, up from 0.5 percent at the moment. Currently the Korean Government is preparing the new aircraft industry development plan, which will be announced in 2008. Many ambitious aircraft development plans after KHP will be announced.  
 
In the space sector, one of the main driving forces to develop related technologies is the government itself. It is right in a way that space activities require high development cost. They also need scientific expertise and high levels of technology. The government’s strong will can lead to the development of these strategically important technologies.  
 
Actually, there has been a continuous series of development projects spearheaded by the government since 1989. The first project was the scientific micro satellite KITSAT-1 (Uribyul-1). Close to that time, the first sounding rocket program KSR-1 was started.  
 
Since then, in the scientific satellite area, 3 KITSAT projects and one Science and Technology Satellite (STSAT) were developed. In the Earth observation satellite area, two Korea Multi Purpose Satellites (KOMPSAT) were developed. In the space rocket area, three KSR projects were successfully carried out.  
 
The space budget in 2008 is about $300 million, reflecting the request for the development of satellites such as the KOMPSAT series, STSAT and COMS, the launch vehicle program, space center construction and basic space technology research programs.  
 
Currently under the Space Development Promotion Basic Plan, several development projects are under way. In the satellite sector, KARI is working on the development of the succeeding KOMPSAT series, including KOMPSAT-3 and -5, aiming to secure self-sustaining high-resolution observation satellite technology.  
 
The Communication, Ocean, and Meteorological Satellite (COMS) programs by KARI seek to operate meteorological observation and ocean monitoring, and space test of experimentally developed communication payloads, in geostationary orbit. The target launch of COMS is scheduled for mid-2009.  
 
KARI is developing the first Korea Space Launch Vehicle (KSLV-1) in cooperation with Russia and plans to launch it around the end of this year. In addition, Korea¡¯s first flight to the International Space Station (ISS) by an astronaut using a Soyuz spacecraft will be one of the biggest events this year.  
 
Space application parts, such as satellite broadcasting and communications and remote sensing service, are recognized as the most commercialized. Annual sales turnover of private enterprises in the area of satellite broadcasting and communications is more than 60 percent of the total Korean space sector.  
 
In a relatively short time, Korea has built up its technological capabilities in the space sector. The technology development strategy can be summarized as follows.  
 
In the first stage, Korea made contracts with foreign companies to develop space systems such as satellites. The foreign company leads the development, and Korean researchers worked together and tried to learn how to build the system.  
 
In the next stage, Korea develops the system with the support of a foreign partner. Finally, Korea designs, develops and integrates the space systems independently.  
 
It clearly shows the path KARI has built in its technological capabilities in the KOMPSAT series. During this process, many Korean companies have participated and built up their technological capabilities.  
 
For example, the Korean Aerospace Industry Ltd. (KAI) integrated KOMPSAT-1 and developed the Electrical Power subsystem. Korean Air developed the Structure & Mechanical subsystem. Doowon Heavy Industry and Hanwha were also involved in the Altitude & Orbit Control Subsystem and Propulsion Subsystem development.  
 
Tech-oriented venture company, SaTRec-i, spun off from KAIST SaTRec, developed microsatellites and exported them to Malaysia.  
 
In 2006, the total turnover of the Korean space sector was around $1.1 billion. Among them, space-related manufacturing is around $430 million and $690 million is for space application.  
 
Most of the space application is satellite communication and broadcasting business. The total personnel of space sector is 2,372 — 1,381 (58 percent) in the industry, 730 (31 percent) in research institutes, 261 (11 percent) in universities.  
 
The number of personnel was increased 7 percent in 2007 compared to the previous year.  
 
In conclusion, despite its short history, the Korean aerospace industry is growing quickly. It now expects an increase in the world aerospace market share. The Korean Government declared its ambitious policy targets, which include being in the world’s top 10. However, it is not an easy task, as the global aerospace market is highly competitive and the industry is undergoing global restructuring.  
 
Strong government support for the continuous technological development, as well as cooperation between the government, industries, government-funded research institutes and universities, is essential for the competitiveness of the aerospace industry.  
 
The aerospace industry can prove a nation’s technological capability as well as power. Even though Korea is a latecomer in this particular industry, it has the potential to become one of the leading aerospace countries in the world. 

RIA Novosti

Source: Global Security

25/03/2008 13:52 MOSCOW, March 25 (RIA Novosti) - Up to 20 long-range interceptors will conduct launches of guided missiles during a tactical exercise in Siberia on Wednesday, a Russian Air Force spokesman said.

The live firing drills, involving MiG-31 Foxhound interceptors from an air regiment based in the Chita Region, will be held at the Telemba firing range.

“During the exercise, MiG-31 interceptors will fire missiles at airborne and ground targets at night and during the day,” Colonel Alexander Drobyshevsky said. “About 20 combat jets will participate in the drills.”

The MiG-31 Foxhound is a two-seat supersonic interceptor aircraft developed to replace the MiG-25 Foxbat. It is equipped with two D-30F6 turbofan two-shaft engines with a common afterburner and a variable supersonic nozzle, which allow the aircraft to fly at supersonic speeds of up to Mach 2.83.

The interceptor also features unique air-to-air missiles capable of hitting targets at ranges exceeding 200 kilometers (125 miles), including aircraft with stealth capabilities, cruise missiles, and supersonic aircraft.

According to various sources, about 500 MiG-31s have been produced since production began in 1978, approximately 370 of which remain in service with the Russian Air Force.

Russia plans to modernize its whole fleet of MiG-31interceptors, which have been in service for 25 years, and extend their service life with the air force until 2015.

Drobyshevsky also said more than 10 units from the 5th Air Army based in the Urals Military District will participate in large-scale combined-arms exercises at the Kapustin Yar and Ashuluk training grounds, both in south Russia’s Astrakhan region near the Caspian Sea.

The exercises will be held on April 1-10, and will involve MiG-31 Foxhound interceptors, Su-24 Fencer fighter-bombers, Mi-24 Hind attack helicopters and transport planes.

by Staff Writers
Fort Worth TX (SPX) Mar 25, 2008

Source:  Space War 

The U.S. Navy’s version of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is scheduled to make its first flight next year, but technicians have spent the last decade perfecting the aircraft’s stealth design and materials to ensure they stand up to harsh carrier-deck and combat conditions with very little upkeep. “The F-35C’s stealth will bring a profound increase in capability to the Navy’s fighter fleet. What it will not bring is increased maintenance,” said Steve O’Bryan, a former carrier fighter pilot and director of F-35 Domestic Business Development for Lockheed Martin. “The Lightning II is a 5th generation fighter with supportable stealth that was designed into the aircraft from the very beginning. It will endure extreme abuse without degrading its stealth radar-signature performance.”The F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5th generation stealth fighter. Three F-35 variants derived from a common design, developed together and using the same sustainment infrastructure worldwide, will replace at least 13 types of aircraft for 11 nations initially, making the Lightning II the most economical fighter program in history. The program is on schedule to deliver aircraft to the U.S. military services beginning in 2010. The first test aircraft has completed 35 flights and has exceeded performance expectations. The inaugural flight of the first short takeoff/vertical landing F-35B is on schedule for mid-2008. All 19 test aircraft are in production flow or on the flightline, and assembly has begun on the first two production F-35s.

The F-35 achieves its Very Low Observable stealth performance through its fundamental design, its external shape and its manufacturing processes, which control tolerances to less than half the diameter of a human hair. Special coatings are added to further reduce radar signature.

The package is designed to remain stealthy in severe combat conditions, and tests have validated that capability. After obtaining baseline radar cross section (RCS) measurements from a highly detailed, full-scale Signature Measurement Aircraft (SigMA), a team of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman engineers intentionally inflicted extensive damage - more than three dozen significant defects - on the model. The damage represented the cumulative effect of more than 600 flight hours of military aircraft operations. RCS measurements taken after the damage showed that the stealthy signature remained intact.

“Even operating in harsh carrier-deck conditions, the F-35C will require no special care or feeding. In fact, its stealth adds very little to the day-to-day maintenance equation,” O’Bryan said. “We’ve come a long way from the early stealth airplanes, which needed hours or even days of attention and repair after every flight. The F-35 not only avoids that intensive level of upkeep, it will require significantly less maintenance than the nonstealth fighters it is designed to replace.”

A total of 2,581 F-35s are planned for the U.S. and U.K. services, with more than 600 additional aircraft expected to be integrated into the air forces of seven other partnering nations. Built in three variants, the F-35 will replace AV-8Bs and F/A-18s for the U.S. Marine Corps; A-10s and F-16s for the U.S. Air Force; F/A-18s for the U.S. Navy; Sea Harriers, GR.7s and GR.9s for the United Kingdom’s Royal Air Force and Royal Navy; and other aircraft currently used by F-35 participant countries.

The F-35A is a conventional takeoff and landing variant designed for use with conventional runways. The F-35B is a short takeoff/vertical landing version that can operate from small carriers, austere bases and deploy near front-line combat zones. The F-35C will be the U.S. Navy’s first stealth aircraft, and is designed to withstand the rigors of catapult launches and arrested recoveries aboard the Navy’s large carriers. All F-35s are stealthy and supersonic, and incorporate the most powerful and comprehensive avionics suite ever flown on a fighter aircraft.

Lockheed Martin is developing the F-35 with its principal industrial partners, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems. Two separate, interchangeable F-35 engines are under development: the Pratt and Whitney F135 and the GE Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team F136.

by Staff Writers
St. Louis MO (SPX) Mar 25, 2008

Source:  Space War 

Boeing has been awarded a $49.5 million U.S. Air Force contract to integrate the Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) into 145 F-15E aircraft. The contract includes hardware and installation services on the aircraft, as well as initial pilot equipment, such as helmets and visors. Installation in the first F-15E is expected in October, with contract completion in December 2010. “When this contract is implemented, JHMCS will be integrated on F-15C, D and E aircraft,” said Phil King, JHMCS program manager for Boeing. “Demand for the system continues to be strong because it has proven to be one of the most valuable tools available to our warfighters.

“JHMCS enhances pilot situational awareness and provides head-up control of aircraft targeting systems and sensors. Using visual displays inside the helmet visor, the pilot is able to detect, acquire and engage surface and airborne targets.  

This is the ninth production contract for JHMCS. Low-rate initial production began in 2000, with full-rate production starting in 2005. The system is deployed on more than 2,500 F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 aircraft worldwide.

Source:  Military Spot 

PICATINNY ARSENAL, N.J. - For the first time in Afghanistan, U.S. Soldiers test-fired a 155 mm global-positioning-system-guided Excalibur artillery round fired from an M777A2 lightweight howitzer.

The firing took place in the Kunar Province Feb. 25 and was reported by the Army News Service.

The M777 Lightweight 155 mm Howitzer, which fires the Excalibur round, is designed to be a digitally programmed weapon. It is about 9,800 pounds lighter than the more commonly used M198 Howitzer and is reportedly more accurate.

Both Excalibur and the M777A2 howitzer were developed here at Picatinny.

“The main purpose of the M777A2 is that it is more able to help the units … by providing more timely and accurate fire,” explained Capt. Ryan Berdiner, commander of C Battery, 3rd Battalion, 321st Field Artillery Regiment.

Army Staff Sgt. Darius Scott of C Battery, 3rd Battalion, 321st Field Artillery Regiment, added that the Excalibur round travels farther and is designed to hit targets that conventional ammunition does not always hit.

Scott also said that by using Excalibur, the Army is mitigating a lot of collateral damage that other rounds might cause.

During the firing, the GPS-guided Excalibur round was given the proper grid coordinate to seek out and destroy a target using the Enhanced Portable Inductive Artillery Fuse Setter, which works by placing the system on the tip of the round and sending a digital message containing the coordinate for the round to find.

The test fire was deemed to be a success when word came back from the impact area that the Excalibur successfully completed its mission by finding and destroying the target at the provided grid coordinate.

Product Manager for Excalibur Lt. Col. Joseph Minus called the test firing in Afghanistan great news, saying that it, “really motivates the Picatinny team and the contractors who have been working long and hard to build Excalibur projectiles for the Army and (the Marine Corps),” he said.

Excalibur proved in Iraq, and now in Afghanistan, that cannon artillery can provide precision fires at extended ranges, Minus said.

PM lightweight 155 and PM Excalibur have been partnered and working closely together for four years in order to bring this precision strike capability to towed artillery systems, echoed joint program manager for the lightweight 155 mm Jim Shields.

The firing of Excalibur from the lightweight 155 mm during combat operations in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom is the culmination of a lot of hard work by Picatinny and contractor personnel, he said.

“It adds a significant improvement in both lethality and logistics … expanding the types of roles and missions that artillery systems can take on, which is exceedingly important in this (global war on terror) environment that we’re fighting in,” Shields said.

This entry was posted on Saturday, March 22nd, 2008 at 5:48 am and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

By bruce rolfsen

 Published: 24 Mar 15:27 EDT (11:27 GMT)

Source: Defense News

The pilot of the F-15C Eagle that broke apart in November, forcing an U.S. Air Force-wide grounding of F-15s, has sued the jet’s builder.

Maj. Stephen Stilwell’s lawsuit accuses Boeing Co. of endangering the lives of F-15 pilots and claims the company should have known the fighter wasn’t built to specifications.

The lawsuit seeks more than $75,000 from Boeing. The 27-year-old jet was built by McDonnell Douglas, which became part of Boeing in 1997.

The “misconduct of Boeing constituted gross indifference” and a “conscious disregard for the safety of F-15 pilots,” the lawsuit filed March 21 in St. Louis, Mo., federal district court claims.

The lawsuit says that Stilwell, a Missouri Air National Guard and commercial airline pilot, has not been cleared to return to flying military or civilian jets because of the injuries he suffered as the plane broke into pieces and he ejected. Calls to Boeing were not immediately returned.

After the Nov. 2 breakup, an Air Force investigation which included assistance from Boeing, determined that the fighter broke apart behind the cockpit because one of the support beams - called a longeron -that reinforces the fuselage snapped apart. The aluminum-alloy longeron failed because it was thinner than what specifications called for and its rough finish left the longeron susceptible to cracking.

The breakup occurred as Stilwell flew a 7.8G-turn, a standard training maneuver.

An inspection of all Air Force F-15s turned up 149 that also had thin or rough finished longerons and nine jets with cracked longerons.

Since the inspections, the Air Force has cleared most of its 420-plus F-15s to return to flight. However, Eagles with questionable longerons must be inspected more often.

By Joe Pappalardo

Air & Space Magazine, August 01, 2007

These days, fighter pilots’ helmets are nearly as complex as their airplanes. And with good reason: If the helmets can’t tell where the pilot is looking, many of the airplane’s systems, including weapon targeting, are useless.

The folks at Vision Systems International of San Jose, California, who have designed advanced U.S. military helmets for the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18, make their living at the nexus between man and machine. VSI’s flagship program is the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System. It uses a magnetic field in the cockpit to sense the orientation of the helmet, then feeds information on the current line-of-sight to the aircraft’s flight computer. VSI’s helmet has an accuracy of about four milliradians, an angular measure commonly used in the world of shooting and targeting. One milliradian equates to one one-thousandth the distance to the target. So if the target is 1,000 feet away, you’d be accurate to within a foot.

Determining where a pilot is looking by tracking eye movement is a much taller order. “You would not believe some of the human factor issues you have to overcome to have a successful eye tracker,” says Louis Taddeo, VSI marketing director. “Although we have research projects into eye tracking, it is a very difficult task both from a technical [standpoint] and the physiology.”

So for now, VSI uses helmet position to achieve that four-milliradian accuracy. Pilots need only turn their heads to aim their weapons, even during high-G maneuvers, freeing their hands for other tasks.

The head-up displays (HUDs) currently used in fighter aircraft are sophisticated, but they have a single, fixed point of view. Future helmets will include virtual displays projected across the visor, where the pilot can see information and targeting prompts. The F-35 Lightning II helmets due to enter service in 2012 will offer what Taddeo calls “extreme off-axis targeting.” Instead of having to turn the airplane toward the target to frame it in a fixed-view HUD, the pilot will be able to see targets that are off-axis, or not in the direction of flight. Like its predecessors, the Lighting II helmet will use magnetic head tracking, but VSI says the accuracy will be greater, courtesy of software upgrades that combine head position with eye location and data from the HUD.

Lockheed Martin test pilot Jon Beesley took the new helmet for a test drive last April in the first pre-production F-35. It was the first time a pilot in a tactical fighter had flown without a HUD in at least three decades. Expect more flights if the reviews are good.

Got a nagging question we can help you answer? Send an email to Joe Pappalardo at needtoknow@airspacemag.com

Some keep flying for decades, while others end up on the scrap heap.

By Rebecca Maksel

airspacemag.com, March 01, 2008

Source:  Air & Space Magazine

A reader asks: “Two articles in the Feb./Mar. 2007 issue of Air & Space raised a question. One was about the last flying examples of a number of classic planes (”And Then There Was One”). The other was about newer jetliners, too old to fly, being chopped up to make skateboards and soft drink cans (”We Recycle“). It struck me as odd that the old planes are still airworthy, while the jetliners are fit only for the scrap heap. Why can some planes seemingly keep flying forever, while other, newer ones are already used up?”

An aircraft’s lifespan is measured not in years but in pressurization cycles. Each time an aircraft is pressurized during flight, its fuselage and wings are stressed. Both are made of large, plate-like parts connected with fasteners and rivets, and over time, cracks develop around the fastener holes due to metal fatigue.

“Aircraft lifespan is established by the manufacturer,” explains the Federal Aviation Administration’s John Petrakis, “and is usually based on takeoff and landing cycles. The fuselage is most susceptible to fatigue, but the wings are too, especially on short hauls where an aircraft goes through pressurization cycles every day.” Aircraft used on longer flights experience fewer pressurization cycles, and can last more than 20 years. “There are 747s out there that are 25 or 30 years old,” says Petrakis.

How do airlines determine if metal fatigue has developed in their passenger-liners? Bob Eastin, an FAA specialist on aircraft fatigue, says, “[Airlines] are really relying on the manufacturer’s maintenance programs. The manufacturers design the aircraft to be trouble-free for a certain period of time. There are maintenance actions to preclude any catastrophic failures, but that’s not to say that the aircraft might not [experience metal fatigue] before those times…. When you get to a certain point [in the aircraft’s lifespan], you need to inspect or replace certain parts.”

Nondestructive evaluation (NDE) inspections are used both during production (to ensure that components start out free of defects) and during an aircraft’s service life to detect cracks as small as 0.04 inch. Inspectors might, for example, take a close look at fastener holes located at the wing and spar junction.

We contacted NDE experts Deborah Hopkins of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Guillaume Neau, of Bercli, LLC, who together answered in an e-mail: “The challenge in developing an easier and less expensive inspection strategy is to design a technique that can be used from the skin side (of the wing), that does not require removal of the fastener, and that provides the same or better resolution than the conventional method of removing the fastener.” Not having to remove the fastener is a big money-saver.

One commonly used method of NDE is ultrasonic phased-array testing, which analyzes the echoes from ultrasonic waves to reveal imperfections inside a material. By using several ultrasonic beams instead of just one, then varying the time delays between the beams, inspectors can look inside a material at different locations and depths, thereby determining the size and shape of any defects.

At present, million-dollar robotic inspection systems equipped with phased arrays are being used to inspect wings and composite fuselages for large commercial aircraft and jetfighters before they fly. “Most aircraft manufacturers and service providers—Dassault Aviation, Airbus, and Boeing, for instance—ensure the quality of their production with large-scale non-destructive testing systems,” Neau wrote in an e-mail. And while a million dollars may sound like a lot, “when put in perspective, the number is not so large,” he says. “If manufacturers discover a problem after assembly, the cost of dismantling and redoing the part or the scrappage waste is much higher than the inspection cost.”

Got a nagging question we can help you answer? Send an email to Rebecca Maksel at rmaksel@si.edu