Australia prepares for first Wedgetail inspection
Billion Dollar Defense Contract Up For Grabs In Australia
33rd Rescue Squadron earns MacKay Trophy
Monthly Archives: May 2010
Australia’s MRH90 mess
This article is just polite way to state that the Australian taxpayer is in trouble with the MRH90 program. Another victory for the DMO I am sure. Can someone remind me what we pay the DMO for?
Some of the immediate challenges we face are an insufficient rate of effort to support introduction into service activities. This has been due to a number or reasons,’ Leonard said.
‘There has been poor system reliability or design on items that include cabin floors, windscreens, main gear box, machine gun mounts and recently, of course, the engines. The inconsistent supply chain has meant that aircraft often spend longer on the ground than we would like while we wait for spare parts. This inconsistency rate of effort has hampered our ability to train the instructors required to grow the best of the capability.’
In addition, without an airworthiness certificate with a significantly broad range of operations in its scope, the ADF was limited in its development of operational capability.
Leonard said a broad range of solutions was now being implemented while industry was running a product improvement programme seeking to rectify the reliability and design issues that have been discovered by the early customers of the NH90, including Australia.He said the ADF’s spare parts holdings, which were initially too optimistic, had been adjusted to ‘better reflect reality’.
‘Some bits that we thought would last forever clearly haven’t, and some bits we thought would need replacing often have soldiered on. This harmonising of the spares holdings will be an on-going activity as industry itself sometimes has difficulty resourcing bits from its sub-contractors,’ Leonard said.
In addition, the ADF is looking at training more pilots overseas in an attempt to ‘claw back’ some of the programme’s schedule.
More on the Canadian fighter replacement decision (updated comments)
How will Canada resolve their fighter replacement plan in the future?
Hard to say, but we do know that 65 aircraft is the top number and not 80 as mentioned by other sources.
What should Canada do?
First, if it involves the F-35, Canada should not make this decision any time soon. Just because Canada is a Joint Strike Fighter partner nation (yeah one of those guys that was also briefed on engine choice btw) doesn’t mean that they have to be stupid. The definition of “stupid” would be making any purchase decision on an under-tested F-35. Fly before you buy (a complete go-to-war example) should be the rule.
The budget for fighters looks like it will be around $9B. That puts a ceiling on the total procurement cost per aircraft of $138M each for 65. How Canada can justify this given other defense commitments will be the big question. Canada has a $50B deficit. This will count toward any decision.
For now, the best choice would be Super Hornet Block II F/A-18E single seaters. And given how Canada uses fighters, they don’t need a lot of equipment. JHMCS, the center-line drop-tank that has a built in IRST, ATFLIR, buddy-tanker kits, ALE-55 some HACTS work stations and so-on would do. Any frills would be the more powerful variant of the GE 414 and that is about it. All of this qualifies as reasonable yet allows Canada to be part of a joint bomb-truck effort like ALLIED FORCE 1999 with full PGM and network ability if needed.
Oh, and the requirement from the 1980’s when Canada bought classic F-18s is still valid. That is a two-engine jet for over water and tundra.
What does Boeing say? The sales force is in action.
Mike Gibbons, the Super Hornet’s program manager, says it has excellent capabilities that meet Canada’s needs. He says the planes could cost less than JSF — “in the low $50-million range” — and that the purchase would benefit domestic firms. Canadian firms are already providing parts for the planes, he says.
“We think Canada will make a very smart decision on the next generation fighter,” Gibbons says. “But, to make that decision, it really needs a competition.”
What does LM say? Given the F-35s troubled history, their claims are not very credible.
For its part, Lockheed Martin officials don’t dwell on reports that say the F-35 program is behind schedule or that the aircraft will cost more than double what was expected. Company representatives insist the F-35 will be delivered on time and that each plane will cost around $50 million. “The program is cooking along,” says Steve O’Bryan, vice-president of F-35 business development.
F-15 music video
This video is mostly about the USAFs long arm of the law-the F-15E Strike Eagle, with a few non-Strike Eagle clips thrown in. With everything else going bonkers in the USAF fighter roadmap, the long range Strike Eagle (which comes off the assembly line with 12k-15k hour airframe life) is one of the most important aircraft in our tool bag. Even more so when it gets AESA upgrades.
The author of this video makes a lot of Miami Vice tribute videos. So if this video makes you want to wear 80′s cloths, that is the reason. For me, the best music of the F-15 is it’s startup sequence with the jet-fuel-starter (JFS) spooling up; the first engine engaging; the JFS spooling down; the first engine winding up; the JFS spooling up again; the second engine starting up; the JFS spooling down; the second engine getting up to speed. Now THAT is music.
How to retro-fit an AESA for your F-16
This is an updated video of Northrop-Grumman’s SABR project.
Contrary to what some think, the F-16 is not dead. Brand new F-16s (with AESA) would do well for the USAF once the F-22 does its work. Anyone wanting to save the USAF would do well to consider 20 Fighter Groups each with two Squadrons of 12 aircraft each as the new model to meet home air defense and expeditionary needs.
But no. The USAF fighter roadmap is off the rails.
Waverider X-51A video
This is a good video of the launch of the X51A hypersonic from a B-52. I hope we can continue to afford experimental testing in the coming years.
Hope yet for the carrier air wing?
Maybe some in the Navy will dummy up and realise that the F-35 Joint Strike Failure doesn’t bring much to the carrier air wing.
For now though, Navy leadership is following party line and saying they are “committed” to the F-35 program. They have to say that or they will find their career cut short.
A report (PDF) from the congressional budget office (CBO) (and blog post) —Strategies for Maintaining the Navy’s and Marine Corps’ Inventories of Fighter Aircraft—stating that there is a good opportunity to pull F-35 funds and push them to Super Hornet buys makes a lot of sense.
Alternative 3: Implement the HFH program in the same way that Alternative 1 would, but also increase purchases of Super Hornets by 126 aircraft (beyond the planned total of 515) and decrease purchases of Joint Strike Fighters by 93 aircraft between 2018 and 2023.
Alternative 3 would provide larger increases in inventory than would Alternatives 1 and 2. Moreover, each additional Super Hornet provided under Alternative 3 would offer improved performance (a more-capable radar, longer range, and the ability to carry more weapons) than would a SLEP Hornet. The reduction in JSF purchases would result in fewer of the most advanced aircraft after 2020. At about $3.8 billion to $4.8 billion higher than the cost of the base case, the total cost of Alternative 3 would fall between the costs of Alternatives 1 and 2. In the near term, however, the cost would be substantially higher than for Alternatives 1 or 2 because the savings from reducing JSF purchases would not offset the cost of new Super Hornet purchases until after 2017.
Expense? As it pertains to the Super Hornet there are plenty of knowns. With the F-35—due to a severe lack of flight testing including no traps or cat shots or OPEVAL— it is a flying question mark. CBO or anyone else doesn’t yet know what the F-35 will cost the Navy.
Yet for now, you won’t hear much from the Navy on this because career protection in the flag ranks is more important than what is good for the defense of the U.S. Bros before hoes. Fortunately, Congress is already working to do that which the Navy is unable to accomplish; plan for the future of the carrier air wing with the Super Hornet multi-year buy efforts.
A new definition of “do more with less” is coming. In the end it will be “do less with less”. Navy top leadership needs a lot of transformation. Will this ever happen?
F-35 training hazards
This from Inside Defense (www.insidedefense.com subscription)-
JSF Training Commander Confident He Will Get First F-35 Aircraft In Fall
EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, FL — The commander of the Joint Strike Fighter training wing is confident the Pentagon will receive its first F-35 jets this fall, leading to the graduation of the first cadre of pilots and maintainers next year.
This is how goofed up things are. Flight testing of the aircraft itself is way behind. Yet we are going to give a woefully under-tested aircraft to operational testers before they have a complete operators manual showing the performance limits of the aircraft. This means that the operational testers will get a very thin “Dash-1″ for one of the worlds most complex combat aircraft. How do you create tactics for the jet if you don’t know all of its performance limits?
This is so stupid it stinks.
Obama administration releases new national security strategy
I suppose there is a lot that one could find fault with the administrations newly released national security strategy (PDF). More on that in a bit.
It is what one would expect; political. Any administration does the best they can with what they can to keep votes; this is a big election year.
The best part of the document is where it states that the U.S. reserves the right to act unilaterally when needed. This is critical.
The real threat to our security is the federal debt and the down-turn of an economy that depended mostly on house-flipping. Debt is mentioned in this document. Spending within ones means—and strong leadership—are the linch-pins to a strong defense.
What don’t I like? The weak mentions of airline and airport security. One word; profile.
There is a weak neither here nor there mention of border security along with a weak mention of the importance of Mexico. We give aid to the Mexican government in the hopes of security. It gets re-routed to one of the gang factions. Great work. Troops in Afghanistan and Iraq? Better money would be spent with troops along our south border. Money spent in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan is money wasted.
Then there is this: “Pursue the goal of a world without nuclear weapons”. I can’t imagine why someone would want such a thing. It has been nuclear weapons that have kept the peace for a very long time. It has kept major powers from reliving the Battle of the Somme, Barbarossa and so on.
Then there is the bad idea of not producing any new nuclear weapons. Our stockpile will become a paper tiger.
There are those that should not have nukes. It is interesting that almost every time the topic of nukes in the Middle East is brought up; Israel’s stockpile is strangely absent from the conversation. Also on the topic of nukes, it is funny that the U.S. provided Pakistan with F-16s paid for with U.S. taxpayer anti-terror funds. The F-16 if anything is an excellent tac-nuke bomber. So yeah, great idea to give them more. And there are some other bad examples of our nuclear policy but I will leave it at that.
The U.S. ability to secure air superiority past the 2020’s is in serious danger. This has to be one of the five important points after the topic of nukes, federal debt, leadership (as it pertains to the Constitution) and reasonable diplomacy. And yet the ignorant on the topic like Mr. Gates, just don’t get it.
2030 doesn’t look so good for world stability.
